Why Gay Americans Should Vote for John McCain
The editors of Gaywired.com asked me to write a piece on why gays should vote for John McCain. They just posted it, John McCain Better for All Americans, Not Just Gays. Here’s the opening:
From the outset of the 2004 campaign, I had intended not only to vote for George W. Bush, but also to contribute to his campaign. That all changed on February 24 when the president announced his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). A week later, in the California Republican primary, I wrote in Rudy Giuliani for president.
For the first time since 1992, I considered voting for someone other than a Republican for President of the United States in the general election. I debated voting Libertarian or not voting at all. I paid close attention to the then-presumptive Democratic nominee, John Kerry. The more I listened to Kerry, the more I realized how clueless he was about the threats facing our nation abroad and how similar his domestic policies were to the failed ideas of Jimmy Carter and other liberal Democrats, policies rejected even by Bill Clinton, the most recent Democratic president.
By the spring of 2004, I returned to Bush, albeit reluctantly, largely because he understood international threats and had a strategy for confronting Islamofascism. Given the stakes in that election, I overcame my unease about his endorsement of the FMA and voted for him, but did not contribute to his campaign as I had initially anticipated.
Click here to read the rest.
45 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Good article! Glad to see it in the “mainstream” gay news!
Comment by Colocelt — October 5, 2008 @ 5:51 am - October 5, 2008
In the 2000 primary, I didn’t know who I was going to vote for until Bush said the words, “compassionate conservatism.” That sealed it for me. I remembered Daddy Bush, and pulled the lever for McCain. In 2004, I voted for Bush. No issue outweighed 9/11. Jonah Goldberg wrote an article about a month ago about “buyer’s remorse” about Bush. I had none, because I knew exactly what “compassionate conservatism” meant.
Comment by rightwingprof — October 5, 2008 @ 7:08 am - October 5, 2008
Cnn & Msnbc, were yelled at by the obama camp on
They are not allowed to report Rezko & Ayers,,
Only fox will report on it, Barack obama called and said, if you report on these issues he can lose the election,
Palin is not Lying about barack obama,
Just MSM refuse to report obama and Ayers, & Rezko CNN & Msnbc refuse to, report any negative issues about Obama, Both CNN and MSNBC , or on the obama campaign, just like Kieth Oberman & chris mathews
Comment by Jody V — October 5, 2008 @ 11:46 am - October 5, 2008
The article is good. I think it both demonstrates the struggle gay conservatives must feel occasionally with balancing personal beliefs in how government is to function with being gay in a country in which being gay is tolerated rather than accepted.
Comment by James — October 5, 2008 @ 12:29 pm - October 5, 2008
Great article. I have never understood why mainstream gay rights groups believe that legislation will improve their standing in America. Laws do no affirm who you are — you do. A belief that only government can protect you and forward your interests is classic socialism where the underlying assumption is that you are indeed less equal in some fashion therefore you need government intervention to validate your worthiness.
I have never accepted that premise. I am who I am and I love who I love. My partner and I do not live in the safe enclaves of gay America. We live out in the suburbs with neighbors who are as right wing as you will find. And you know what? They love us and accept us into their lives. Not because I yell and scream that I should be able to marry my partner. But because they witness everyday that we are not a threat to their marriages or their children. We live our lives just like they do.
Until the mainstream gay rights movements begin to understand that it’s how you live your life as opposed to demanding someone accept your way of life , we will never achieve the equality we all want for ourselves and for our country.
Comment by Dee — October 5, 2008 @ 12:33 pm - October 5, 2008
Dee, I too, live with my partner in the suburbs…in the South. Can’t imagine it gets more right wing than that.
I agree that laws do not affirm who a person is, and I definitely don’t want that.
I do think that when laws treat one group of people differently than another, government and/or the law can provide the opportunity to create a level playing field.
Whether or not a person takes advantage of such an opportunity is up to them.
I see my mother as an example of this. When she decided to get her Masters, she enrolled at a university the very year it was desegregated. She worked as a teaching assistant to a professor who assigned her one task: My mother, a black woman, was to research articles that supported claims that blacks were genetically less intelligent than whites. She reared my sister and I to believe that we were just as good, just as intelligent as anyone. This lesson helped get me through coming out.
I’ve got relatives who took advantage of opportunities that were not available before desegregation, and they’re very successful nowadays. Others who didn’t may have achieved personal success or may not have. Still, whatever they’ve achieved is the result of choices they made in the face of opportunities available to them.
Comment by James — October 5, 2008 @ 1:02 pm - October 5, 2008
These two videos might help you decide who to vote for.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRmB93McZeI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Cybercorrespondent
http://cybercorrespondent.blogspot.com
Comment by Cybercorrespondent — October 5, 2008 @ 1:21 pm - October 5, 2008
Great article. The isolation can be overwhelming when you are gay, conservative and a christian. I am new to this website, and I thoroughly enjoy the intelligent commentary and news reporting. Keep up the good work, and I will return day after day.
As a side note, is anyone aware of a gay conservative/republican dating website. Have not found any – please advise. And, my apologies to any for using this forum to ask about dating websites.
Comment by Jeff — October 5, 2008 @ 1:28 pm - October 5, 2008
James, what country would that be? Pray do tell. In America, being gay is certainly accepted. Gay marriage may not be as accepted – yet – but that is another question. So, if America is the country you had in mind, I would be fascinated to know why you think that in America, being gay is not accepted.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 5, 2008 @ 2:50 pm - October 5, 2008
Again – what laws could those be, with respect to gays in the 21st century? Other than the obvious:
(1) The fact that, while gays and straights can both serve in the military, the gay can’t announce his sexuality.
(2) The controversial and novel question of gay marriage.
Those are real differences, and I support resolving them both in favor of gays. But their importance should not be exaggerated. Neither of them poses any real barrier, for example, to the success and happiness of a civilian gay individual or couple.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 5, 2008 @ 2:58 pm - October 5, 2008
P.S. And finally, I would be curious to know how gay liberals manage to balance their belief in human freedom as a basis for gay equality, on the one hand, with their advocacy of various anti-freedom laws and policies on the other.
(Examples: Gay lefties’ advocacy of laws that take away freedom of association; of hate crimes laws which are basically attempts at thought control; of high taxes, which rob people of the results of their own life and work; etc. All highly incompatible human freedom; therefore incompatible with gay freedom, since the oppression of one is the oppression of all.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 5, 2008 @ 3:07 pm - October 5, 2008
(sorry: incompatible **with** human freedom…)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 5, 2008 @ 3:08 pm - October 5, 2008
James, I understand your point, but its very important to remember there is no such thing as group rights. The law does not apply to groups of people, it applies to individuals. group right is one of the basic tennants of socialism and other forms of statism and it is a premise that always needs to be rejected. The reason it is important? because individual rights and group rights cannot co-exist. A society can have one or the other, but it cannot have both.
Comment by American Elephant — October 5, 2008 @ 3:32 pm - October 5, 2008
bernard is a fluffy mudslinger.
Comment by michael — October 5, 2008 @ 3:36 pm - October 5, 2008
Good piece of work. Enjoyed it and may point some Dem friends to it.
Comment by MikeInSedona — October 5, 2008 @ 3:39 pm - October 5, 2008
AE, great point. The government “creates a level playing field” precisely by defending and enforcing individual rights: those rights that apply, or should apply, universally to all individuals.
Whenever government tries to create or enforce group rights, as distinct from such individual rights, it inherently steps on individuals – both the rights of individuals inside the alleged group, and outside of it – with consequent loss of freedom for all.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 5, 2008 @ 3:50 pm - October 5, 2008
Wonderful article.
AE and ILC make excellent points on “group rights”. The notion of group rights gets very sticky when the groups have competing and conflicting interests.
The only thing I can add to Dan’s reasoning is that conservatives are more likely to defend the culture that allows gays to live freely. Progressives embrace “gay issues” but aren’t likely to step on any toes to defend them (if those toes belong to a group that will fight back).
Conservatives, for the most part, don’t embrace (e.g.) gay marriage but are likely to resist attempts to impose intolerant regimes (e.g. sharia).
I cite as examples the attempts in Europe (and Canada) to reconcile “tolerance” with Islamification.
My guess is that a gay couple living in, say, Manchester or Birmingham, UK is more likely to keep a low profile than a gay couple living in Wichita or Waco.
Comment by SoCalRobert — October 5, 2008 @ 4:41 pm - October 5, 2008
That was a very good article. I don’t agree but that doesn’t really matter, it was interesting and mostly free of the usual BS. There’s one point you made that I believe you are totally wrong on:
“we can rest assured that they will not kowtow to the anti-gay minority in the Republican Party. ”
No, we can’t, and despite repeated attempts to downplay the power and danger of the anti-gay right the fact remains you do so at your own peril. You rightly condemn the actions of Islamic fanatics but have a total blindspot to threat of those fanatics here who call themselves Christian. Because they aren’t killing us (or usually aren’t) does not mean that they will not do anything else in their power to interfere with our lives. The groups that are organized for the specific purpose of fighting “the homosexual agenda” are out for blood, figuratively speaking, they have no tolerance for ANY aspect of our lives. And while they don’t openly advocate it and I’m sure the vast majority of them wouldn’t support it but those who take the Bible as word for word literal have no choice but to consider sex between two men a capital offense. I’ve only seen one group that even discusses it on their website and it was unsettling to say the least to see that some believe that when the US is returned to it’s “Christian roots” that such a policy would be instituted. Absolutely that is a minority within minority and they also believe that the Republican party is as wrong as the Democrats and formed their own (Constitution party) so it wouldn’t be valid to claim they have much influence.
To those who commented about their own personal experiences, that’s excellent, and it certainly the best way to bring about change in people’s attitudes. But that is not the experience of many and to take the attitude of “if we play nice they will like us” is to ignore reality and displays a complete lack of concern for those LGBT folk who face very real threats.
Comment by Dave — October 5, 2008 @ 5:04 pm - October 5, 2008
“Whenever government tries to create or enforce group rights, as distinct from such individual rights, it inherently steps on individuals – both the rights of individuals inside the alleged group, and outside of it – with consequent loss of freedom for all.” ah yes, the corporation as an individual rights holder.
Comment by michael — October 5, 2008 @ 5:08 pm - October 5, 2008
Very well written, Dan!
Comment by cme — October 5, 2008 @ 5:27 pm - October 5, 2008
Short Dave: “Conservatives want to kill all gays, so you should do whatever the Democrats tell you to do.”
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2008 @ 6:29 pm - October 5, 2008
GayPatriotWest,
Wow, I looked at the comments on GayWired and you got THRASHED!!!
Amazing how many of them follow the Roie O’Donnell. “Radical Christianity . . . ”
Hope you reached someone out there. We Republicans need all the votes we can get!
Comment by Kit — October 5, 2008 @ 6:34 pm - October 5, 2008
You know NDT, there’s times I think you are a very disturbed liberal who posts the crap you do to try and make conservatives look like total cretins. It isn’t working, the only one it makes look like a total cretin is you.
Comment by Dave — October 5, 2008 @ 8:34 pm - October 5, 2008
ILoveCapitalism, because my father was in the U.S. Army, wound up moving overseas when I was three, and I lived in Germany for 15 years before returning to the U.S. to attend college. Even growing up, I only noticed homosexuality as an issue with regard to the military community at the timeand within my own family; being black and gay is still a bit of a taboo. With regard to the local population and all of my German friends, it has remained a non-issue.
Personally, after coming out, I become comfortable with being openly gay regardless of what people think. I actually credit my father with that.
Comment by James — October 5, 2008 @ 9:13 pm - October 5, 2008
ILoveCapitalism, with regard to civil gay couples, if there is ever any concern that the legal system can be manipulated to challenge legal contracts gay couples have to protect themselves and their families, then It is my belief that a true barrier does exist. It’s probably a bad example, but imagine if the couple in the Terry Schiavo case was gay…that marriage license the Schiavos had (no matter where one stands on the issue), was recognized in the absence of any other contract.
Comment by James — October 5, 2008 @ 9:21 pm - October 5, 2008
Hey, Kit, thanks for taking a gander at the comments for me. Given the reaction my ideas get from most gay leftists, I decided not to even look at them, figuring they’d just be angry screeds without much attention to the facts addressed in my article.
I would daresay those comments have more to do with the writers’ own neuroses than my arguments.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 5, 2008 @ 9:54 pm - October 5, 2008
AE and ILoveCapitalism, here is an honest question: Given that you espouse the rights of the individual rather than group rights, do you, in your political/personal opinions, think things were handled properly or improperly during the Civil Rights era (with Brown vs. The Board of Education, Loving vs. Virginia, or with the National Guard escorting Mr. Merredith to classes at Ole Miss)?
It almost seems as if we have a “chicken or the egg” situation. The rights of the individual are of great importance, yet the opinion regarding a group can get in the away of the indivudal realizing those rights when the law doesn’t provide a deterrent to discrimination (the law allows plenty of personal freedom for one to maintain one’s personal prejudices).
Comment by James — October 5, 2008 @ 10:25 pm - October 5, 2008
James,
As does the Constitution and all our founding documents.
I am confused what group rights you think were upheld by those court cases? They werent upholding or establishing group rights, they were in fact striking down laws that treated people as members of a group rather than individuals.
Comment by American Elephant — October 5, 2008 @ 11:21 pm - October 5, 2008
What peril? What threat? Please! Grow up.
How the hell are they interfering with your life? Actually, YOURE the one demanding they cough up THEIR money to subsidize YOUR relationship, so if anyone is interfering with anyone’s life, knucklehead, its you. “usually arent” killing you? oh fucking hell, do grow up.
I oppose the gay agenda…and I havent killed you…yet! mwahahahaha! There it is, right there, opposing the “gay agenda” in and of itself means youre a biggoted fanatic likely to murder people who disagree with you. James, you are a child.
Yeah, if they ignore that obscure little section called THE NEW TESTAMENT. For crying out loud mary. Exit stage left, cus this drama sucks.
and yet you’re fine with a guy who hangs around with people who plant and blow up bombs and says to this day he didnt do enough.
What a piece of work you are.
Comment by American Elephant — October 5, 2008 @ 11:58 pm - October 5, 2008
filtered
Comment by American Elephant — October 6, 2008 @ 12:03 am - October 6, 2008
” James, you are a child.”
James didn’t say it, I did. And there is nothing childish about forming an opinion based on the words of the people in question. What is childish is you covering your eyes so you don’t have to acknowledge the evidence. Also childish is exaggerating what is said to make it seem more extreme than it is, but that’s a typical pseudo-conservative tactic.
“Actually, YOURE the one demanding they cough up THEIR money to subsidize YOUR relationship”
And here is where you betray, not only your ignorance, but the reason you deny what I say. Because you are just like them. Nobody is being asked to subsidize ANYTHING. Unless of course you mean allowing partners on insurance plans, filing joint taxes and other such things that come with marriage. By that idiot logic you should give me back every penny of MY money that has gone to support hetero relationships and the results of their uncontrolled lust – children. Why should my money go to their education, why should they get tax breaks for breeding etc. You are the one that needs to grow up.
“Yeah, if they ignore that obscure little section called THE NEW TESTAMENT.”
As a matter of fact, which you would know if you actually paid attention, they rely heavily on the OT to justify their crusades. And, per their teaching, the OT law was only modified, not nullified by the NT. It would be a waste of time to go into anymore details with you.
“For crying out loud mary. Exit stage left, cus this drama sucks.”
lol, thanks that made my day
Comment by Dave — October 6, 2008 @ 9:34 am - October 6, 2008
“If there is ever any concern… then it is my belief that a true barrier does exist…”? Do you mean that reality is subjective? That if you *feel* something is so (or “have a concern” about it), then it is the job of others to dance to your tune and agree there is a “true” barrier, when there isn’t? I hope that’s not what you are saying!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 6, 2008 @ 10:41 am - October 6, 2008
P.S. What I describe at #32 would be the classic post-modern Leftist position. “If anybody *feels* a barrier or an offense here, then there is one.” It’s the basis, for example, for the Left “speech codes” that they use to suppress free speech and dissent from leftism. Harmful rubbish, and again James I sure hope it is not what you intended.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 6, 2008 @ 10:49 am - October 6, 2008
One more general thought.
GROUPS DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS. Not if one properly understands what a “right” is. Only individuals can ever have rights.
A right is something that an individual is or is not entitled to do. All rights begin with the individual’s right to live. Because the individual has a right to live, he or she then has a right to free conscience, free speech (i.e. to speak her own view), free association, disposing of her own property, etc.
Groups of various kinds (the Church, the State, the Mafia, the KKK, the rampaging mob, etc.) threaten rights, by group misbehavior and over-reach. Group membership is amorphous. No one ever speaks for every member of some alleged group. There is no “group point of view”… therefore no group rights.
As AE pointed out, Jim Crow was bad because it attempted to cram individuals into groups and systematically violated *individual* rights. In putting a stop to Jim Crow, government restored *individual* rights. The notion of a group having rights is a leftist effort to pervert / undermine the concept of “rights” altogether, so that our Left would-be rulers can get away with a lot more, if/when they come to power.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 6, 2008 @ 11:14 am - October 6, 2008
The founders were so against the concept of groups that a lot of them initially had aspired that there would be no factionalism or political parties.. i bet unrealistic but a testament to thier hope that people would realize as Americans they’re all in it together.
Now we have crap identity politics that the Democrats have cultivated very well.. all of them with their hand out.
Comment by Vince P — October 6, 2008 @ 11:59 am - October 6, 2008
You know NDT, there’s times I think you are a very disturbed liberal who posts the crap you do to try and make conservatives look like total cretins. It isn’t working, the only one it makes look like a total cretin is you.
Thank you, Dave, especially given that numerous people here, including GPW and ILC, know exactly who I am and what I do, and have met me on numerous occasions. By the way, I’ve been posting on GayPatriot, including v1, long before you ever arrived and even before GPW formally became GayPatriotWest, so I think by now everyone is aware of my political leanings.
In short, what you just demonstrated is how reality takes a back seat to your paranoid fantasies, lack of intellect, and utter bigotry.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2008 @ 1:00 pm - October 6, 2008
By that idiot logic you should give me back every penny of MY money that has gone to support hetero relationships and the results of their uncontrolled lust – children. Why should my money go to their education, why should they get tax breaks for breeding etc.
Answer: Because society will collapse in one generation without children, in a few generations more without educated children.
But then again, as has been made obvious, the only use the gay liberal community has for children is as dress-up dolls to take to sex fairs. Liberal gays like Dave don’t care one whit about “society”; all they care about is their own gratification and selfish needs, as we saw with Dave’s insistence that condemning promiscuous disease-spreading sex is “right wing”, and now his demand that gays, like Charlie Rangel, not have to pay taxes because they’re “oppressed”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2008 @ 1:10 pm - October 6, 2008
“Answer: Because society will collapse in one generation without children, in a few generations more without educated children.”
The first is happening in Europe.. the 2nd here.
Comment by Vince P — October 6, 2008 @ 2:09 pm - October 6, 2008
For the record: NDT is a good guy and Dave, cut the personal-attack crap.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 6, 2008 @ 3:36 pm - October 6, 2008
I call bullshit. Provide an example. (Note that in doing so, you will of course have to specify who “they” is and what time period you are talking about, both of which are unclear at this point.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 6, 2008 @ 3:39 pm - October 6, 2008
ILC, I didn’t mean to imply that reality is subjective. I abhore “speech codes,” by the way.
Comment by James — October 6, 2008 @ 4:40 pm - October 6, 2008
NDT, it shouldn’t have been very hard to understand that I was not advocating that childless people should be free not to support education. Your political leanings aside there is no excuse for misrepresenting what a person says to it fits what you have decided a long time ago that he believes. You repeatedly do so with my comments and I truly don’t understand the bizarre satisfaction you get out of it. Any rational reader would be able comprehend the words I use in the way I use them and not blow them out of recognizable proportion. If you a rational person, then the only answer is that you do it on purpose, which seems to me to be pointless. But have a ball. I guess the real issue I have is that it is an acceptable practice on here. Oh well, your field, your rules.
ILC, so I should cut the “personal-attack crap”? No problem, the day the reverse happens. I have to go appease some auditors at work, later, if I decide to waste the time providing proof of what I said, I will. I say wast the time because it really makes no difference, no matter what I could produce it would be from my “paranoid fantasies, lack of intellect, and utter bigotry” right?
Comment by Dave — October 7, 2008 @ 8:36 am - October 7, 2008
clarification: twisting of other’s words is unfortunately an acceptable practice in many places not just here and not just by conservatives.
Comment by Dave — October 7, 2008 @ 8:40 am - October 7, 2008
#42: “Any rational reader would be able comprehend the words I use in the way I use them and not blow them out of recognizable proportion.”
Dave,
I’ve observed NDT effortlessly toy with you like a terrified squealing little mouse for months and he has NEVER misrepresented your statements nor lied about the words you have used to express your beliefs or opinions. What’s really eating you relates to the quote above. You have posted comments almost identical to the one quoted above several times in the past, and YOU STILL DON’T GET IT. What you apoplectically see as NDT “blowing your words out of recognizable proportion” is, in fact, nothing more than NDT using analogies and logic to illustrate how ridiculous, unsupported, hysterical and bigoted your statements truly are. You’re not upset because NDT has misrepresented your statements–you’re spinning like a top because he effortlessly exposes the intellectual bankruptcy of your statements by just analyzing them and taking them to their logical (and totally absurd) conclusions.
When you start with your bigoted ghost stories about a homosexual-slaughtering Christian army and use expressions like “out for blood,” “capital offense” and “face very real threats,” NDT just points out how stupid you sound because the nation you describe simply has NOTHING in common with reality and there is nothing to support your Cassandra-complex except the hyper-victimization fantasies you create in your head. Republicans, conservatives, evangelicals–even the most fringe elements of these groups do not sit around waiting for the right moment to pounce and take away all of your rights and establish some apocalyptic theocracy designed solely for your oppression. In this nation there are principled debates about gay marriage and military service and that’s about it. And every day those debates become less and less relevant.
That’s the truth. There’s no anti-gay Christian mafia out to get you, Dave. You flatter yourself to presume that is the case. And as long as you keep posting your hysterical comments about this “imminent threat” we all face, NDT is going to keep pointing out what an ignorant fool you are. You’re just going to have to deal with that. And by the way, the fact that you keep pushing this imaginary, anti-gay, Bible-thumping tsunami lurking here in America while gay teenagers are swinging from the gallows in Iran (a far worthier recipient of your contempt and derision than American Christians), really demonstrates how warped your thinking is–pretty much beyond hope, you poor little thing.
Comment by Sean A — October 8, 2008 @ 5:20 am - October 8, 2008
Thursday morning I turned on the news and heard that ACORN is under investigation for voter fraud in a number of states. Since I learned not to trust what the media tells us, I decided to have a look what the bloggers had to say. On a sight called A Look Into Barack Obama’s Past – Obamamania – Zimbio website I found the following comment that made me think.
A concerned citizen
Oct-6-08 7:48pm [Edit]
Those two videos paint a very clear picture. As the terrorists have promised, they will destroy this country from with in. …..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puN9X1mVgRA ……..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjvBEKrGkDI …….
Back to my point. By allowing the voter fraud to go on, makes this great country look like a third world dictatorship. We are supposed to send an example to the rest of the world how honest elections are held and not allow the media to distort the facts. Please people, wake up and tell the media no more. Boycott all the products advertised on publications like the Newsweek, Time magazine and other propaganda machines like the New York Times. Also do the same with CNN and other communist propaganda news sources. Even the Fox News network is starting to sway the viewer decision. After Thursday’s presidential debate, watching Chris Wallace interview a communist from Saint Louis made me sick. Even bad journalists should realize that when you ask a communist or a skin head to give you their views, you can pretty much expect what they are going to say.
I certainly had enough of all of the $%#@Comunism.org
Cybercorrespondent
Comment by Cybercorrespondent — October 9, 2008 @ 11:54 am - October 9, 2008