Worst Vitriol against Gay Conservatives in 15 years
In their blind hatred of the GOP, many gay activists have missed one of the biggest stories impacting gay and lesbian Americans in this election.
While the Republican vice presidential nominee did indicate her support of a federal marriage amendment, on at least four occasions in this campaign, she has said we should treat gay and lesbian citizens fairly, not judging us by our difference.
At the same time, we’ve learned that when John McCain learns “a friend is gay, he says it doesn’t make any difference.” The Republican nominee conducted an interview with the Washington Blade, “the first known time a Republican presidential nominee has agreed to an interview with a gay publication.”
And as I recounted in an essay for that paper, not only was I, an openly gay man, credentialed as press at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, but the GOP also made Log Cabin welcome there as well, even dispatching top campaign aides to their various events in the Twin Cities.
Despite this clear evidence of progress, Dale Carpenter wrote last month, “Time and again gay conservatives have been called self-hating, treasonous, and selfish. It’s the worst vitriol against gay conservatives I’ve seen in fifteen years in this movement.“Â (Emphasis added.)Â As with anything by Dale, just read the whole thing?
What explains this bile, this failure to see a Republican Party becoming increasingly open toward gay people?
I see it constantly in the comments to our blog, some so vicious I don’t approve them when they’re caught in our (increasingly capricious) spam filter (but do save them as .pdfs). Why do these people hate us so? Why do they persist in describing a Republican Party which may once have existed but lives now primarily in the fevered imaginations of its critics.
Why, if they claim to favor a society inclusive of gay people, do they fail to note increasing evidence of that inclusion? Is it because they “need” an enemy to demonize and find villain in the GOP?
Is it that their partisanship defines them?
94 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The Republicans use gays as a wedge issue. Most of them are quite tolerant as individuals. Look at Cheney and his daughter as an example. But they use gay marriage etc as a way to rally their troops and raise money. The question for you I guess is their ‘tolerance’ enough. Not for me.
The fact that you are trying to find little crumbs like this just shows how slim the pickins are out there for gay republican, unfortunately.
Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 3:43 pm - November 3, 2008
The problem is the party and many of the people in the conservative movement could give a donkey’s behind about GLBT Americans. I would honestly vote for Hillary over McCain, I voted for McCain because Obama is not qualified and has a dangerous leftist tilt to him.
And thanks to the Yes on 8 campaign you get to see the mask removed off the people across the street on how they really think about gay and lesbian Americans.
Until there is a change in attitude and a realization that inclusion is needed to reach the 18-30 generation, I do not expect much.
Comment by Matt from California — November 3, 2008 @ 3:58 pm - November 3, 2008
I’ve tried to write something here three times and still can’t word anything the way I want it. I don’t get the hatred either. The name
calling. What have you. Maybe because we’re a target they can
actually see face to face, the Bush administration really hasn’t done
anything to win us a place in the hearts of mankind…regardless of
the change we can see from the inside. There’s still too many of the
old ones in the GOP, still too many of the hardliners…and they’re
the ones that have been in the eyes and ears of the nation the past
eight years. Hopefully as things progress, and the GOP softens, some real political choice can be opened up to those on the left.
I feel too, they’ve bought into this notion of the easy fix…this “hope
and change”. I think they wholehearted believe that once he’s in
office he’ll just snap his fingers and gay people will be equals. I
guess that’s what happens when you’re blinded by faith in a person.
You think they can change the whole world. I wouldn’t want to be
in their shoes at the end of his four years (if elected) when they
come to realize that the same old system of slow progress..erosion
not explosion is still in effect and we’re still going to have to work
from the inside to change heart and mind of EVERYONE instead of
forcing it down their throats like a big dose of foul tasting federal
medicine.
Comment by David — November 3, 2008 @ 4:05 pm - November 3, 2008
“Why do these people hate us so? Why do they persist in describing a Republican Party which may once have existed but lives now primarily in the fevered imaginations of its critics.”
You make this statement–or something akin to it–on a regular basis. I don’t doubt that you get rather obnoxious emails, but it would be easier to take seriously if you just once took on some of your supporters on this site (quite frankly, including the original GP) who can not respond to any disagreement with conservative views without being nasty and vile. In general the democratic party is better on gay rights, not perfect and not without hypocrisy at times, but on average better. For most gays and lesbians if they are going to be primarily single issue voters, it makes perfect sense for them to be more supportive of democrats in general.
From a different perspective for sure, I am probably more similar to you that I consider a candidate’s position on gay issues, but it is not the only issue I am concerned. Yet often anyone who comments from even a moderately left postion on this blog is met with “get off the plantation”, “libtard” or some other non-thinking response. I may be wrong, but I do not recall you ever calling out even your nastiest supporters as long as s/he was solidly on the right.
Comment by brendan — November 3, 2008 @ 4:30 pm - November 3, 2008
Crumbs, Mac? Slim pickins’? Did you even read my post?
Have you been following this campaign at all? Seems you’re like the people I described in the post writing about a GOP that exists only in your imagination.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 3, 2008 @ 4:31 pm - November 3, 2008
Yes GP.. crumbs. And I have been following this religiously since Bush took office. Every day.
You are actually trying to tell me that I should be happy that a woman, who is for the FMA, said that she would treat us fairly? What does she mean by that? What is her definition of fair? You know that definition: “Life is already fair. All you gays want are ‘special rights’ ”
And you think that someone who backs Yes on Prop 8, like McCain, is ok cos he has gay friends? Those are crumbs. And no.. im not in the slightest bit happy with that.
And the fact that you are accepted warmly by Republicans? Does that give you all warm fuzzies cos they dont look like they actually hate you? Good for you. Not for me.
The fact that you dont look at the above three items as crumbs is a reflection of how you feel you deserve to be treated.
I, frankly, deserve more. And believe me Im not a single issue voter talking here.
Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 4:52 pm - November 3, 2008
Why do these people hate us so? Why do they persist in describing a Republican Party which may once have existed but lives now primarily in the fevered imaginations of its critics.
The reason that gay Democrats and liberals demonize the Republican Party is because they have to make it look worse than the Democrats they support and endorse.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 3, 2008 @ 4:59 pm - November 3, 2008
Um, Mac, I don’t look to the state to solve my problems. I want the state to lieave me alone. What you count as crumbs. I count as freedom.
You deserve more. Do you? Then, quit whining and start earning it instead of demanding your political leaders coddle you.
Anyway, your first line gives you away. This post is not about Bush, but about the current campaign in which Bush is not participating. Guess you guys just need someone to hate. What are you going to do when he’s gone? Who will you blame? Who will fill the hole in your lives?
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 3, 2008 @ 4:59 pm - November 3, 2008
“What explains this bile, this failure to see a Republican Party becoming increasingly open toward gay people? ”
What explains this is that some/many of us are not willing to accept a party that doesnt accept us fully as equals. Now the Republicans may be making progress. and are becoming increasingly open, but they are far away from the Dem party.
Face it, If you are a gay person , the Yes on 8 proposition in CA defines the parties’ attitude towards us. Obama and Biden (as well as Clinton) have both spoken out against it. McCain for sure is a proponent. I assume Palin would be also.
The conservatives want to change the CA constitution to discriminate against us. But you are ok with that cos McCain has gay friends and treats them well. Because Palin said that she would treat us fairly… and McCain talked to the Blade.
Im ok with you being fine with that. Its your choice. But dont tell me that you dont understand the bile coming from some of us. You feel included. I feel you’re being used.
Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 5:02 pm - November 3, 2008
Much worse.
And as for brendan’s complaint, it is amusing to watch people who scream “kapo”, “Uncle Tom”, and “Jewish Nazi” at the drop of a hat to describe gay Republicans and conservatives whine about their treatment. Sort of like Obama’s whine today about attacks on his wife while he supported and endorsed his allies putting out stories claiming that Sarah Palin’s baby was not hers and that Todd Palin was having incestuous sex with his daughters.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 3, 2008 @ 5:03 pm - November 3, 2008
What explains this is that some/many of us are not willing to accept a party that doesnt accept us fully as equals.
Bologna.
You are more than willing to accept that, mac, as long as it’s the Democrat Party. In fact, you call it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 3, 2008 @ 5:06 pm - November 3, 2008
I am not a liberal. In fact Im a little c conservative/libertarian.
The supreme court of CA has given us the right to marry. I want the state to leave me alone. Your line of reasoning is absolutely twisted. Im not looking fo any help from the state.
Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 5:06 pm - November 3, 2008
NDF..
I voted for Reagan. I was for the Iraq war. I spent 8 years in the Marine Corps. You are clueless about me and my voting record.
You wouldnt know a real conservative if he slapped you on the ass, dood.
Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 5:10 pm - November 3, 2008
See? Thats all u guys do. U look at my mention of Bush and say: yes.. I can attack this guy cos he must be a bush hater. woo hoo!!
You cant even address the fact that Mccain/Palin dont want u to have thse rights.
Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 5:11 pm - November 3, 2008
Bile? Mac. Once again, I say to a critic: did you even read the post? See the title?
What explains the vitriol being worse than it’s been in 15 years? Four years ago, Bush openly supported the FMA. And the bile wasn’t this bad.
You at least seem to recognize things aren’t as dire as others suggest. It’s one thing to criticize us, another to demonize us.
And that’s the point of this post.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 3, 2008 @ 5:12 pm - November 3, 2008
GP
Speaking for myself, i am more motivated because of the fact that Prop 8 is on the ballot. And again if you are a single issue gay voter (im not) I can extrapolate that to feel that some people are more motivated now than they have ever been. Thus, gay Dems are more adversarial, or ‘bilious” than in former years especially when part of the Rep party are trying to change the constitution of CA to stop marriage.
Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 5:32 pm - November 3, 2008
I voted for Reagan. I was for the Iraq war. I spent 8 years in the Marine Corps.
Then it’s really funny to see you endorse and support the candidate who supports groups that harass Marines and call them “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 3, 2008 @ 5:39 pm - November 3, 2008
And here’s your demonstrated proof that Barack Obama and your Democrat Party fully endorse and support those who namecall and harass Marines.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 3, 2008 @ 5:43 pm - November 3, 2008
So, mac, you’re excusing hate speech?
This year, it’s just the California constitution. Four years ago, it was the federal constitutions.
That doesn’t excuse the bile. It merely defines your side as more mean-spirited.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 3, 2008 @ 5:43 pm - November 3, 2008
Us as more mean spirited?
I guess someone can call me all the names in the book and Im offended.However take away my constitutional rights, and I would say Im more than offended…
The latter defines mean spirited.
Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 5:46 pm - November 3, 2008
I have questions.
What does it mean for us to be “Fully accepted as equals?” How will we know when we are?– I know a lot of queens who are never going to be satisfied.
I have to preface my next question with a statement. My partner and I flew to L.A. on the Morning of June 17, 2008 and were married at 12:30 p.m. on some cliffs overlooking the ocean. Why is marriage suddenly a ‘right’ to which we must be granted access and a litmus test for how tolerant an individual must be of my life style?
To me, it doesn’t matter if prop 8 passes or not. I think it’s great that we live in a country where the people decide, and I think whether we get the answer we want or not, we still win because people are talking and looking at marriage in general, and gay rights in particular. I don’t think having a right to get married, just because straight people can, is a good enough reason. I’m married because I want my partner and me to be married for life, it is an outward expression of our commitment to each other. The rest is just legal BS. –Certainly I hope that prop 8 doesn’t pass, but I’m not going to loose any sleep or shed any tears over it.–It just means, as responsible adults, we will need to keep meeting with out attorney every other year to keep all of various forms and contracts up to date.
Comment by Andrew Ammerman — November 3, 2008 @ 5:49 pm - November 3, 2008
I don’t think opposing SSM means one hates gays or doesn’t respect them is equals. I would oppose blind people being hired as airline pilots, and it doesn’t mean I hate blind people, or don’t respect them, I just don’t think letting them fly airplanes is a good idea.
Comment by V the K — November 3, 2008 @ 5:53 pm - November 3, 2008
Yup, Mac, your side as more mean-spirited. I receive e-mail from both sides on 8. Were it not for a lesbian couple I know who got married, I’d be voting against the No side just because of the language of their releases.
Fortunately for them, I know what marriage means to this lesbian couple who understand the meaning of the institution, but they would rather demonize people who understand marriage as it has long been defined rather than try to convince them of its ability to evolve.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 3, 2008 @ 5:55 pm - November 3, 2008
“And as for brendan’s complaint, it is amusing to watch people who scream “kapoâ€, “Uncle Tomâ€, and “Jewish Nazi†at the drop of a hat to describe gay Republicans and conservatives whine about their treatment.”
Typical of you ND-30 to say such things, but please point out once when I ever used any of those terms. I haven’t so you can’t. Your response is precisely what I meant in my original post. Does GPW call you on your comment? Why not? Is it his partisanship that defines him?
Comment by Brendan — November 3, 2008 @ 5:57 pm - November 3, 2008
Hardly a good analogy.
Blind people cant fly airplanes. Theres noone that would argue that.
You are saying then that gay people are somehow physically or otherwise unable to be married?
Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 5:59 pm - November 3, 2008
Seriously, what proof do you have that vitriol is “worse”? For that matter, why do you not take a tougher stand against the Republicans who are virulently anti-gay? Did you have a posting of a certain Republican who referred to “the Gay” recently?
If tempers are flaring, may be it’s simply that people are tired of pretending. In 2004, the GOP used anti-gay hate to divide and conquer. Right? And that lasted for the next couple years of frenzied struggle to get anti-gay marriage bans on the ballot to get out the vote.
Today, we see the same kind of thing happening. Sarah Palin may say that she is for treating people equally but as was reported when she signed legislation supporting domestic benefits in Alaska she did so by adding her person distaste. Moreover, John McCain support Prop 8 and other states’ gay marriage bans.
What is also true is that there is a deliberate amnesia taking place here. What about the sheer volume of hate that Conservatives as a whole have directed at liberals? There’s an industry devoted to pushing the meme that liberals or “libruls” are anti-American, unpatriotic, slanderous, etc.
Rush Limbaugh has made millions pushing racist, hateful messages. Where is the outrage? Where was the outrage against the years of Clinton bashing? Hillary Clinton was portrayed as a murderer. Look at the Obama bashing: socialist, Marxist, Communist, Muslim, anti-American, blah, blah, blah.
You folks can dish it out but you can’t take it.
In many ways, Conservatives seem like crybabies. There’s unyielding criticism of their “enemies” but outrage at their tactics or simple criticism.
For years, the Conservative Movement has talked about “personal responsibility” but where has that responsibility been in terms of the crises the nation faces today? Republicans controlled Congress for how many years? Phil Gramm passed what key legislation that caused this financial mess. Newt Gingrich cheated on two wives and had the temerity to criticize Bill Clinton’s adultery. For a couple of weeks, Ann Coulter and others tried to blame the financial crisis on minorities even though it was a pure bullsh@t argument, it was just par for the course.
When Republicans get caught committing crimes or sins, there is tons of love and forgiveness. They can be pro-gay one day and throwing gays under the bus the next day like Rudy Giuliani–who happily shredded his marriage vows for a mistress. Do as I say not as I do! Rush Limbaugh spent years ripping Strawberry for his drug addiction while Limbaugh was an addict himself.
It goes on and on and on.
It’s the hypocrisy. People are sick of it. It’s not vitriol. It’s people fighting back.
You can point to the occasional Democratic homophobe but for every one there are 10 on the Republican side. So, why should gay progressives care about the lip service Republicans like John McCain make? Especially when McCain can’t even provide a page on his website devoted to gays but has a page devoted to NASCAR fans. What does that say?
Ultimately, Democrats are the ones who are fighting for and not against gay rights.
1. Enacting ENDA
2. Repealing DADT
3. Repealing DOMA
4. Enacting Fully equal Civil Unions
Those are all Democratic initiatives that are core beliefs. Republicans, of course, can’t say the same.
Comment by blake — November 3, 2008 @ 6:00 pm - November 3, 2008
Based on the arguments used by SSM advocates, no, I don’t think gay people are, by and large, fit for marriage. I hear lots of talk about benefits and status, but very little about commitment and obligations. I think marriage has been weakened enough by easy divorce and serial marriages, and should be strengthened, not diluted, in order to preserve its benefit to society.
In general, extending marriage rights in hopes that it will make gays socially responsible makes as much sense to me as extending mortgages to financially irresponsible people in hopes that they will become fiscally responsible.
Comment by V the K — November 3, 2008 @ 6:04 pm - November 3, 2008
well GP…
now the fact that you would vote against your own constitutional rights, because you have been offended, says it all..
Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 6:05 pm - November 3, 2008
Mac, go study the history of marriage. It has been defined by gender differnce for millennia. Even in societies allowing polygamy or polyandry, the husband was married to each of the wives, none of the wives to each other and vice-versa.
In some culture, e.g, Native American berdache, if a man married another man, one of the two had to live in the guise of the opposite sex in a highly gender stratified society.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 3, 2008 @ 6:07 pm - November 3, 2008
Now, as someone has pointed out, if two gay people want to commit exclusively to one another, than they can do that without a piece of paper from the government. But what I hear from the activists is that they don’t want to change gay social mores to conform to traditional expectations of marriage, but they want to change the definition of marriage so that there is no expectation of exclusivity, or monogamy, or permanence. *That* is what I oppose.
Comment by V the K — November 3, 2008 @ 6:07 pm - November 3, 2008
V the K
That is absolutely untrue. No one want to do that. Its the same idea of marriage that straight have. Exactly. Including monogamy and all the boredom and responsibilities.
Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 6:11 pm - November 3, 2008
Wow GP.
listen to yourself. You are defending the extinction of a right that you possess under the CA constitution.
Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 6:14 pm - November 3, 2008
You guy are funny you realize that? You are desperately trying to come up with reasons to defend the party that wants to strip you of your rights.
Thats ok. Dont get married then. But why deny that there are some gays out there that can handle marriage? Why not encourage gays to get married.. its the family oriented, conservative thing to do, right?
Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 6:18 pm - November 3, 2008
Eric Eberdling begs to differ:
As someone smarter than me pointed out, that ain’t monogamy.
Comment by V the K — November 3, 2008 @ 6:20 pm - November 3, 2008
Are we, mac?
Striping us of rights? Extinction of rights? It’s not a right, but a benefit, one conferred by the state Supreme Court in defiance of the will of the people. And based on misunderstanding of the definition of marriage and a misreading of the state constitution.
Comments like yours that show such disrespect for traditional marriage make me reconsider my vote tomorrow.
You defend those who badmouth us, and ignore the points I have made in my comments, repeating the left-wing talking points on gay marriage rather than understand my arguments.
And not even considering the point about the tone of the emails I’ve been receiving.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 3, 2008 @ 6:23 pm - November 3, 2008
V the K
Assuming that u are gay.. you really define the self-loathing one that GWP complains about being called..
Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 6:27 pm - November 3, 2008
Oh, and mac, you still haven’t addressed the main point of this point, this title, why the vitriol is worse now than it has been in many years.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 3, 2008 @ 6:30 pm - November 3, 2008
Yes.
The supreme court.. whether you agree or not, says its a right. And when you, um, actually become a constitutional lawyer, Ill have more respect for your comment about ‘misreading the constitution’. As in.. WTF more do u know about the CA constitution than the chief justice of the CA supreme court?
Therefore by amending a constitution to revoke that right, you are, um, stripping someone of that right.
Understand now?
Nite dears
Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 6:32 pm - November 3, 2008
“Oh, and mac, you still haven’t addressed the main point of this point, this title, why the vitriol is worse now than it has been in many years.”
I did. See 15 above.
Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 6:33 pm - November 3, 2008
So many salvos fired back and forth here, and these are just comments on a blog entry. Doesn’t this rather prove GPW’s original point?
Let’s face it. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have, perhaps in very different ways, “used” the gay American in strategizing and rallying the respective parties. And let’s also face it that we are a minority population. It is what it is. If we devote our entire political energy to building our gay identity, we’re going to be open to use and abuse by both sides.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to hear a debate between the gay liberal and the gay conservative in which not a single gay-rights issue would be addressed? There’s a lot more going on in the world than same-sex relationship issues, and despite my passionate belief in same-sex marriage recognition, I think I’d be more open to hearing how we can keep our borders, sovereignty, and dollars safe.
That is not “self-loathing.” That is prioritizing the issues, and it’s part of what makes a democracy work.
Comment by Porchbound — November 3, 2008 @ 6:34 pm - November 3, 2008
Um, Mac, please find the dignity definition the state Supremes used to defend their decision in the state constitution.
Just because the Chief Justice said it, that makes it right. Guess you liked that Dred Scott decision then.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 3, 2008 @ 6:37 pm - November 3, 2008
V, I think you need to rephrase that. We are not proponents of gay marriage to try and make gay more socially responsible, we want gay marriage for those who already are. Or do you mean to say that gays are innately irresponsible????
(I know you don’t but the shot was there so I took it
Comment by sonicfrog — November 3, 2008 @ 6:39 pm - November 3, 2008
Please enlighten me and show me exactly where the gay activists and NO on 8 people have made that statement.
I’ve only seen ‘Equality for all’ – and ’8 isn’t fair’.
Equality for all – couldn’t that include the polygamist as well? ALL seems pretty broad statement to me.
Comment by Leah — November 3, 2008 @ 6:47 pm - November 3, 2008
GPW:
No indeed. Just because he said it doesnt make it correct. But his expertise makes his interpretation more acceptable than yours.
Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 6:48 pm - November 3, 2008
Except when it’s not. It appears gay marriages were once sanctioned within the Christian Church:
Comment by sonicfrog — November 3, 2008 @ 6:50 pm - November 3, 2008
That is absolutely untrue. No one want to do that. Its the same idea of marriage that straight have. Exactly. Including monogamy and all the boredom and responsibilities.
Here’s the Beyond Marriage manifesto outlining what liberal gays want.
Best example: marriage for “households in which there is more than one conjugal partner”.
And I believe V the K already spanked mac nicely enough on how liberal gays are redefining monogamy to mean multiple sexual partners while married.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 3, 2008 @ 6:52 pm - November 3, 2008
mac there is where we disagree. If you’re going to say the state constitution defines a certain thing, you need cite that state constitution. The majority said the state constitution includes a notion of dignity, but did not cite that document.
So, then, you feel Chief Justice Taney better understood the constitution than I ever can.
If the majority had actually quoted the document, I might buy your argument, but to say something is there because he wants it to be there does not him an expert make.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 3, 2008 @ 6:54 pm - November 3, 2008
Porchbound. I agree.
I have zero problem with anyone making gay right/ gay marriage a lesser priority than the economy, defense, taxes etc. Absolutely zero.
However on this thread, there are people, all gay I assume, that are defending their party in the face of their opposition to these rights.
Theyre not saying that “yes.. theyre against us on Marriage rights etc, but I think other things are more important” Thats totally acceptable. Debatable for sure, but acceptable even admirable.
No.. what theyre actually saying “Well maybe they are right in denying us marriage rights”
I can admire people that work within the system to change it.
Be a republican. Be proud of why you vote that way. There are lots of good reasons (again debatable) to do so. But dont try to defend stripping of your rights away because the Supreme Court might have interpreted the constitution in a way that favours you, or like V K, be so seemingly anti-gay (self loathing ? yes.. theres that word) that he seems to have no respect for anyone that CAN handle monogamy.
Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 6:55 pm - November 3, 2008
Typical of you ND-30 to say such things, but please point out once when I ever used any of those terms. I haven’t so you can’t.
Actually, there’s an even better example close at hand: your supporting mac calling V the K “self-loathing” and trying to deny that V is gay.
If you are so opposed to namecalling and hate speech, you should be speaking out against that. The fact that you don’t illustrates your hypocrisy on these matters.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 3, 2008 @ 6:56 pm - November 3, 2008
And I believe V the K already spanked mac nicely
Thanks for sentiment, but Eeeewwww on your choice of imagery.
Comment by V the K — November 3, 2008 @ 6:57 pm - November 3, 2008
NDF
i have no idea where you live.
I live in the bastion of liberal gaydom, San Francisco. Its gets no more liberal than here. And believe me NOONE here wants to get married so that they can be non-monogamous. No-one.
Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 6:59 pm - November 3, 2008
that he seems to have no respect for anyone that CAN handle monogamy.
Unfortunately mac, what you and your fellow liberal gays make perfectly clear is that you support and endorse promiscuity within marriage — and call gays like V the K who are opposed to it and demand monogamy in marriage “self-loathing”.
Just like you support calling your fellow Marines murderers, baby-killers, and “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 3, 2008 @ 6:59 pm - November 3, 2008
You guys need to get laid maybe.
Im not into spanking..
Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 6:59 pm - November 3, 2008
NDF.. u are pathetic. If you were here and said that about calling my fellow marines nurderers, i would kick you ass till you were str8.
What the fuk even thought you can accuse me of that… you twisted little shit.
Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 7:02 pm - November 3, 2008
from w besen: In 1988, Republican Pat Robertson ran for president. Robertson lost, but he amassed a huge mailing list, which was transformed into the Christian Coalition. Under the leadership of Ralph Reed, this organization married the Republican Party and this list is today referred to as “The Base.”
It is the Base and bullhorn folk like Robertson, Savage and even Rush, that continue to stir the pot in an attempt to rally the allies of the conservative religious base, not on real issues, but on emotional issues. Through that rebel rousing, folk are subjected to utterances, innuendos and even blatant rants against LGBT folk, and thus leaving the memory of this intolerance with the stamp of the GOP.
I have many family members, friends (both gay and straight) and colleagues who offer their apologies for the Grand Ol’ Party, even though they all are registered Republicans.
Again, we are seeing changes, especially in the political arena. Kudos to those who welcomed and even acknowledged the LCR folk this year that the convention. Kudos to McCain for his support of LGBT folk in his personal life and on his staff. Kudos to Palin in recognizing her ‘friend’ on national TV.
But until the Republicans talk about issues, instead of relying on maintaining ‘traditions’, work on ensuring liberty for all, and truly become compassionate conservatives with the Christian motto of ‘love your neighbor’ without judgement. . .then you all will probably continue to witness the vitriol. There was David Benkof’s GaysDefendMarriage stint, until David found out that the folk lining up the conservative folk to PUSH Yes on 8, then started showing their anti-semitic colors and David pulled the plug on GaysDefendMarriage. Although David was also a huge lightening rod also for your ‘leftist’ gay folk.
and a little side note on the ‘berdache’ comment: folk in native communites are actually using the term ‘two-spirit’; for in most native cultures, they saw their god as genderless or rather ‘two-spirited’ and your ‘berdache’ were highly honored for they represented their god and the berdache weren’t hiding under any guise, but were actually pleased to don the gender wear of the female. cross dressing is not new. if you really want to hone up on your history, men have been wearing skirts/kilts/robes over the centuries.
Here in Washington’s Governors Race, Rossi the Republican candidate, identifies himself GOP on the ballot, not Republican.
Comment by rusty — November 3, 2008 @ 7:14 pm - November 3, 2008
sonicfrog, that article cites John Boswell’s research which found that while the church sanctioned same-sex unions, it called it something other than marriage. The only times prior to the end of the last century when anyone called such unions marriage was when one partner had to live in the guise of the other.
Rusty, so it seems you’re blaming the vitriol of the left on the actions of some conservatives as if “Yes on 8″ were the only conservative issue out there. As if you hadn’t written the paragraph you wrote before you wonder about the GOP not talking about issues.
I pointed out the increased tolerance I experience as a gay man in the GOP and how the Republican presidential nominee reached out to gay voters. Republicans have talked about issues. On the stump, at the convention, they avoided the gay issues. Sarah Palin (as I noted above) says our society should treat gay people without judgment.
As to the berdache, no, not all those who lived in the guise of the opposite sex chose to do so. Many were forced. And it was more than a question of clothing. They had to live their lives as a member of the opposite sex in a very gender-stratified structure. A man, for example, who lived as a woman had to tend to domestic duties, couldn’t hunt and had to socialize with the women.
Yeah, there are nuts on the right–and many (as I’ve pointed out on this blog) in the “Yes on 8″ movement. But, there are nuts on the left too and many in the “No on 8″ movement, but that does not justify vitriol and hate-speech.
The point of this post is the vitriol on the left in the face on increasingly tolerant GOP. And you attempt to blame conservatives for the hate on the left.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 3, 2008 @ 7:35 pm - November 3, 2008
[...] Worst Vitriol against Gay Conservatives in 15 years [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » John McCain & Improving Situation for Gays in GOP — November 3, 2008 @ 7:55 pm - November 3, 2008
NDF.. u are pathetic. If you were here and said that about calling my fellow marines nurderers, i would kick you ass till you were str8.
Not bloody likely, since you support the Democrat Party doing it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 3, 2008 @ 8:37 pm - November 3, 2008
Oh, and mac….take a look at Barack Obama supporting and endorsing the very organization, Code Pink, that demanded the Marines be thrown out of Berkeley as “uninvited and unwelcome intruders” and called them assassins, murderers, and baby-killers.
Why do you support Barack Obama and the Democrat Party calling Marines murderers, intruders, assassins, and baby-killers?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 3, 2008 @ 8:42 pm - November 3, 2008
Very true. But the church once sanctioned the relationship. The proponents of Prop 8 do not want gay marriage because it will make such unions truly valid, thus put a gay relationship on equal footing with a heterosexual one. The modern church has made a pact with the devil by making the homosexual a scapegoat to avoid tackling more pervasive problems in the diocese, such as divorce. If a congregation would vilify divorce with the same vitriol they do homosexuality, they would lose membership. This is the crux of the problem.
Again I ask, why should gays not be allowed to be married. They can’t have children? Neither can post menopausal women (without help from the doctor). It’s always been done this way? Sure, slavery has always been a part of human history, but we changed and grew to accept a life without it. Well, keeping marriage between a man and a woman is the base on which human society has been built! Would mankind crumble if all marriages were to become illegal or no-existent tomorrow? See slavery. It has been much more vital to the advancement of societies than marriage. The only time marriage really mattered is when the leader of one country married another to form an alliance. All the “Yes on Prop 8″ arguments seem to come back to this “The Church says NO!”. There is no real reason why a gay union should not be called a marriage.
I have to go cook dinner now.
Comment by sonicfrog — November 3, 2008 @ 9:57 pm - November 3, 2008
Needing government to take care of you is highly emasculating — girly lefty homos need a scapegoat.
Comment by American Elephant — November 3, 2008 @ 11:26 pm - November 3, 2008
Until I see well-known Republican politicians other than Arnold Schwarzenegger speaking out against these religious bigots’ “protect marriage” crap, and speaking out unequivocally against Prop 8, I say shut the hell up. Uncle Tom’s Cabin. ugh.
Prop 8 came from Republicans. And is bankrolled by Morons. Er… Mormons.
Comment by jonesey12 — November 3, 2008 @ 11:46 pm - November 3, 2008
Actually, there are churches that take very strong actions against divorce. When handled properly, it’s a good thing, too. The churches with which I’ve been affiliated will assess the situation, try to work with a couple to help them stay together. Depending on the circumstances, they may expel an unrepentant offending spouse. I knew one couple quite well, where the husband simply fell in love with another woman (one with probably 1/4 the brains of his wife), and took off with her, while she abandoned her own husband and 2-3 little children. Basically a story of a Mr. Moneybags falling for Ms. Cute Ditzy Blond, and perhaps, vice versa. The church tried very hard to bring both parties to heel, but sadly, could not prevail on them. So, Mr. Moneybags and Ms. Cute Ditzy Blond were asked to leave.
Comment by Vivian — November 3, 2008 @ 11:49 pm - November 3, 2008
GPW, with friends and comrades like AE, you wonder where the vitriol comes from. . .?
ciao
Comment by rusty — November 4, 2008 @ 12:01 am - November 4, 2008
Off the Plantation…
My friend Dan, aka Gay Patriot West, abhors the worst vitriol he says he has witnessed against gay conservatives in the past 15 years. Dan wonders – why? What explains this bile, this failure to see a Republican Party becoming……
Trackback by what if? — November 4, 2008 @ 12:50 am - November 4, 2008
And just in case brendan missed it, his fellow gay Democrat and liberal jonesey12 just called gay Republicans “Uncle Toms”.
Then again, I doubt brendan missed it; it’s just that brendan is a hypocrite who supports and endorses this sort of namecalling by his fellow liberals and Democrat gays while he whines and cries about his own alleged mistreatment.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 1:19 am - November 4, 2008
“Actually, there’s an even better example close at hand: your supporting mac calling V the K “self-loathing†and trying to deny that V is gay.”
ND-30–you are shameless in your flat out lying. First you accuse me of saying something and when asked to support it you can’t. Instead of admitting it, the fact that I don’t say something is now your proof.
What a moron you are.
Comment by Brendan — November 4, 2008 @ 1:30 am - November 4, 2008
LOL….Brendan, why don’t you read what I said above?
And as for brendan’s complaint, it is amusing to watch people who scream “kapoâ€, “Uncle Tomâ€, and “Jewish Nazi†at the drop of a hat to describe gay Republicans and conservatives whine about their treatment.
You screamed and whined that that was a lie, that gay liberals and Democrats never call gay Republicans that — but, as I pointed out, jonesey12 just called gay Republicans “Uncle Toms”, which demonstrates the point that they do quite nicely.
Now, you can either condemn his words and admit that gay Democrats namecall and insult gay Republicans as “kapoâ€, “Uncle Tomâ€, and “Jewish Naziâ€, or you can demonstrate your complete and utter partisan blindness.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 2:09 am - November 4, 2008
And finally, to demonstrate brendan’s hypocrisy quite nicely:
Instead of admitting it, the fact that I don’t say something is now your proof.
Whereas before, this was what Brendan was insisting about GPW:
it would be easier to take seriously if you just once took on some of your supporters on this site
I do not recall you ever calling out even your nastiest supporters as long as s/he was solidly on the right.
In short, Brendan is insisting that not saying something is adequate proof when he’s haranguing GPW, but when he is held to the same standards, he whines and cries that it isn’t.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 2:16 am - November 4, 2008
69 comments. How many scratches, ladies? Do you read your comments before punching ‘submit’? Thoroughly funny stuff nonetheless… The winner seems to be North Dallas Thirty, who should be writing political commercials for SNL–you know, the kind that defy logic.
Comment by jimmy — November 4, 2008 @ 5:04 am - November 4, 2008
I have read this entire post, and have watched you (GayPatriotWest) criticize gay democrats who have commented.
Yet I have heard no condemnation or criticism of those who have said that you, as a gay man, are not personally qualified to uphold marriage.
Why have you not done so?
You are gay aren’t you? Yet all you do is criticize those who happen to be gay and Democratic, but not those who are apparently Republican and support restricting your rights. (V the K, American Elephant)
Please reply in a respectful manner.
Comment by Someguywithtwoarms — November 4, 2008 @ 5:31 am - November 4, 2008
“In short, Brendan is insisting that not saying something is adequate proof when he’s haranguing GPW, but when he is held to the same standards, he whines and cries that it isn’t.”
ND-30 your response is insane. First you accuse me of saying things I have never said but you won’t admit to that. I specifically said in my original post that I did not doubt that GPW receives nasty emails and I have seen some on the left here post things that I find objectionable. But GPW’s larger point, if I understand it correctly, was that it was the left that is always nasty and bitter and does not respond to conservative position but instead just hurls insults. All I said is I would take this complaint more seriously if he would admit and admonish some of the posters on this site who do so from the right. Nothing you have said disputes that point.
Regarding the accusation that the left is talking about republican party that no longer exists, it is worth looking at the vile racist comments on Lucianne Goldberg’s blog in response to the death of Obama’s grandmother.
Comment by Brendan — November 4, 2008 @ 6:14 am - November 4, 2008
Dan, you are obviously free to vote however you want on Prop. 8. I would just suggest that you base your vote on what you believe the worth of the proposition is, and not vote yes based on comments similar to a poster. On the same token, I would also suggest you don’t vote No based on NDT’s once again slander (and subsequent defense of it) on another poster.
As for the vitriol, I agree with you that it’s bad. But it does become personal when people set out to strip a right/privilege for someone else. If you want to see vitriol, propose an amendment to get rid of all marriage. Sure, some people will argue about tradition of marriage and all that. But I think you’d agree it wouldn’t be pretty.
Comment by Pat — November 4, 2008 @ 8:36 am - November 4, 2008
Um, someguywithwoarms, the issue of this post is not criticism of gay Republicans, but the level of vitriol in said criticism.
I am criticizing those who attempt to blame the level of vitriol on left on the actions of the right. On this blog, I have similarly taken to task loony toon supporters of Prop. 8.
The issue is the vitriol, the name-calling, someguy. The answers to the rest of your comment can best be found by checking my posts in this blog’s archive.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 4, 2008 @ 10:25 am - November 4, 2008
This is “progress?” Maybe if it were the election in 1908 instead of 2008. Can’t we expect more from the GOP?
Comment by Richard — November 4, 2008 @ 11:40 am - November 4, 2008
LOL…Pat, brendan has been playing this whining game for years, even being so foolish as to whine about namecalling in the same thread as where he calls rightwingprof “self-hating”.
As I challenged brendan in that post and now in this one, if he wants to whine and point fingers about namecalling and homophobia, he can do it to his own supporters and to his own party. But unfortunately, he’s not interested in confronting namecalling or homophobia; he’s simply here to bash gay Republicans and conservatives.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 11:40 am - November 4, 2008
#63
That’s good to know. Like the gay marriage issue, there are always exceptions. But most churches will not take the same strong stand against divorce as they so eagerly will against homosexuality. If they did, they would chase away more than half of their congregation.
Comment by sonicfrog — November 4, 2008 @ 11:41 am - November 4, 2008
Regarding the accusation that the left is talking about republican party that no longer exists, it is worth looking at the vile racist comments on Lucianne Goldberg’s blog in response to the death of Obama’s grandmother.
Don’t you love it when liberal gays complain about nasty blog comments while ignoring the fact that their party and their supporters are making death threats over the public airwaves?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 11:44 am - November 4, 2008
Regarding the accusation that the left is talking about republican party that no longer exists, it is worth looking at the vile racist comments on Lucianne Goldberg’s blog in response to the death of Obama’s grandmother.
Don’t you love it when liberal gays complain about nasty blog comments?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 11:45 am - November 4, 2008
Because I spent a long time pursuing an “ex-gay” identity, I follow the ex-gay movement closely. And I can tell you that the leaders of groups like Exodus and NARTH, who are dedicated to opposing any type of equal treatment for gay people because it undercuts their own arguments that gays should “change,” nevertheless mouth the same platitudes about personal tolerance and acceptance that McCain and Paul have uttered.
So, no, I am not impressed in the slightest by what you see as “clear evidence of progress.” To me, the double talk of the Republican Party reveals just as much animus to all gay people–liberal or conservative–as the ex-gay movement.
Comment by Nick C — November 4, 2008 @ 12:32 pm - November 4, 2008
Again I ask, why should gays not be allowed to be married. They can’t have children? Neither can post menopausal women (without help from the doctor).
Post-menopausal women don’t make up the majority of the population.
Again, this all boils down to this fact; not all heterosexual couples are fertile, but there are zero fertile gay couples. Gay couples cannot produce children without extensive artificial intervention, and the children produced will not be biologically related to both of the members of the couple.
The ultimate question is whether marriage is ultimately for the benefit of the adults or of the children. Society has stated unequivocally over time that it exists primarily for the children and for the perpetuation of society through children. That is why gay unions have never been equivalent to marriage throughout history; children are simply not part of the equation in the vast majority of gay couplings.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 12:35 pm - November 4, 2008
NDT,
“the children produced will not be biologically related to both of the members of the couple.” and “Society has stated unequivocally over time that it exists primarily for the children and for the perpetuation of society through children.”
based on those statements, please clarify how children of blended families where stepparents step forward and become either primary or even adoptive parents are to be perceived? Are those children less likely to be of benefit to society?
based on those statements, please clarify how children born to parents who do not marry or one of the parents is absent, either through abadonment, unwilling to accept parental responsibilities or through death, how are these children able to become valuable assets to society?
and finally, if procreation is a standard of marriage, and the marriage results in divorce, how are those children to become valuable assets to society?
it seems that you are doing a large disservice to all those GLBT families raising children quite successfully, be it those children were placed through adoption programs, foster care programs, were blended because of previous relationships or entered the family through artificial insemination.
In fact, you do a large disservice to all families who are raising adoptive children, foster children and even children who were conceived through artificial insemination by insisting that procreation is a standard of marriage.
and finally, with your idea of marriage including the standard of procreation, how will society acknowledge seniors seeking a second lifepartner because one or both persons lost there first love to an accident or early death?
Comment by rusty — November 4, 2008 @ 1:45 pm - November 4, 2008
Better question, rusty; do you support the government encouraging people to divorce the other biological parent of their child and marry someone else? Do you support the government encouraging people to have children out of wedlock, or as a single parent?
The fact that the government does not encourage any of those things does not mean those children are less valuable; it simply means that the adults in the relationship have decided to put their sexual and personal needs ahead of the children involved, and quite often to the child’s detriment.
it seems that you are doing a large disservice to all those GLBT families raising children quite successfully, be it those children were placed through adoption programs, foster care programs, were blended because of previous relationships or entered the family through artificial insemination.
Ah, but you see, rusty, you’ve argued that gay and lesbian people CAN’T raise children successfully without marriage. Will you now admit that gay and lesbian parents have been wholly unsuccessful and have in fact injured their children by bringing them into a situation where their parents are unmarried, or will you admit that gay and lesbian parents don’t need to be married to successfully raise children?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 2:13 pm - November 4, 2008
Notice how rusty equates children’s value and benefit to society with whether or not the government encourages their parents’ behavior.
Better question: why should government encourage people to divorce the biological parent of their children or to have children out of wedlock and as a single parent? All of those things have been shown to be detrimental to children; should the government encourage behavior that is detrimental to children out of the belief that adults should always be rewarded regardless of their choices?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 2:18 pm - November 4, 2008
it seems that you are doing a large disservice to all those GLBT families raising children quite successfully, be it those children were placed through adoption programs, foster care programs, were blended because of previous relationships or entered the family through artificial insemination.
Isn’t it amusing to watch gays like rusty who insist that gay marriage is necessary for gay couples to successfully raise children suddenly argue that gay couples are already raising children successfully WITHOUT marriage?
Pick one. Either the lack of marriage is harmful for these children, which means that gay parents deliberately are putting children into a relationship that is harmful for children, or that marriage is irrelevant to whether or not gay couples can raise children successfully. No more using children as hostages.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 2:22 pm - November 4, 2008
and finally, with your idea of marriage including the standard of procreation, how will society acknowledge seniors seeking a second lifepartner because one or both persons lost there first love to an accident or early death?
In case you hadn’t noticed, the reason the first Arizona constitutional amendment didn’t pass was because it abolished domestic partnerships for older couples — who were AVOIDING getting married because doing so would increase their tax bill, jeopardize their pensions, and lower their Social Security.
Society already penalizes older people who get married.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 2:31 pm - November 4, 2008
NDT, you’re the bloke insisting on the mandate of procreation as a standard of marriage. post 80.
HDT, you need to defend the issue of divorce, blended families, etc. because you are stating that marriage is solely for the means of maintining society.
gay folk are seeking marriage, for the personal reasons of declaring their committment to each other, seeking the benefits given to all married folk, and working on building their own families.
Love makes a family. . .
Comment by rusty — November 4, 2008 @ 2:39 pm - November 4, 2008
“LOL…Pat, brendan has been playing this whining game for years, even being so foolish as to whine about namecalling in the same thread as where he calls rightwingprof “self-hatingâ€.”
NDT you are shameless and/or stupid, you reference a quote where I equated calling someoen self-hating with the lack of anyone on this site expressing any concern about some of the vile things commentors have said about anyone who does not share their politics.
Comment by brendan — November 4, 2008 @ 2:42 pm - November 4, 2008
NDT, you’re the bloke insisting on the mandate of procreation as a standard of marriage. post 80.
Actually, no; I’m the person pointing out that the capability of procreation makes opposite-sex marriage distinctly different and more beneficial for society than same-sex couplings.
Divorce and blended families are like putting wallpaper over a hole in sheetrock; it covers the hole adequately, but it is not a substitute for a solid and permanent wall, nor should it be considered as equal to one. It should be seen as what it is, which is trying to make the best of a bad situation. No one should ever deliberately set out to divorce and remarry, nor should the government encourage it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 3:11 pm - November 4, 2008
Again, brendan, the irony.
you reference a quote where I equated calling someoen self-hating with the lack of anyone on this site expressing any concern about some of the vile things commentors have said about anyone who does not share their politics
But then:
Instead of admitting it, the fact that I don’t say something is now your proof.
So in other words, you can use the lack of saying something as “proof”, but no one else can. Furthermore, you can claim that the lack of saying something is equivalent to hateful speech, while insisting that your lack of saying something is not.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 3:19 pm - November 4, 2008
LOL…Pat, brendan has been playing this whining game for years, even being so foolish as to whine about namecalling in the same thread as where he calls rightwingprof “self-hatingâ€.
Actually, NDT, I was referring to your slander of Mac. It’s bad enough that people (on both sides here) feel the need to name call. But I would hope that you could admit that the slander in post 52 was way over the line.
Comment by Pat — November 4, 2008 @ 6:50 pm - November 4, 2008
Actually, NDT, I was referring to your slander of Mac.
If you’re referring to his namecalling of V the K, that’s in post 36; if you’re referring to his support of calling his fellow Marines murderers, baby-killers, and “uninvited and unwelcome intrudersâ€, that is in post 17 and 18 and again in 58 and 59.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 7:40 pm - November 4, 2008
No, NDT, reread my post. I was referring to your slander in post 52 (the part of the quote you cut off). I read through the posts you referenced. NOWHERE did Mac say he supported calling his fellow Marines murderes, etc. In fact, he repeated that in no uncertain terms in post 54. Now do the right thing and apologize and beg forgiveness. Then cease and desist from slandering again.
Comment by Pat — November 5, 2008 @ 7:53 am - November 5, 2008
[...] GayPatriot » Worst Vitriol against Gay Conservatives in 15 years (tags: election08 gayneocons gaypolitics politics) [...]
Pingback by links for 2008-11-12 « Brain Music — November 12, 2008 @ 4:04 pm - November 12, 2008