Whenever a prominent Republican does something which offends the sensibilities of the politically correct gay élite, they rush to release a statement condemning said individual in particular and the Republican Party in geneeral. At times, they do with good reason as a number of Republicans over the years have said some pretty obnoxious things about gay people and proposed some pretty odious policies.
But, when a Republican shows a degree of tolerance for gay Americans, indicating perhaps that he (or she) believes we should welcome gays into the party’s ranks, he is met mostly by silence from the major gay organizations. Yeah, a few might say something ever once in a while, especially if the MSM picks up on it, but their words seem forced, perfunctory. And to be sure, some of the left-of-center gay blogs will pick up the story. Towleroad and Queerty have a pretty good record on things like this.
How many gay organizations, for example, praised Mary Cheney for giving more money to defeat Proposition 8 than did Matt Foreman, the immediate past executive director of the far left National Gay and Lesbian Task Force?
On the whole, any openness a prominent Republican shows to gay men and lesbians does not draw the attention as does intolerance. It simply doesn’t fit their narrative of narrow-minded Republicans.
And sometimes, Log Cabin, an ostensibly Republican organization, eager to join the chorus of criticism of a politically incorrect Republican, remains silent when a prominent Republican reaches out to gays.
In today’s Washington Blade, two former Log Cabin officials, Christopher Barron and Jimmy LaSalvia, provide yet another example of this phenomenon. After the new Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele indicated opposition to an amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage and his support for “legal protections for gay couples,” he was met by silence from leading gay organizations:
What did the leadership of the nation’s LGBT advocacy organizations have to say about this important breakthrough? Nothing. Not one word of praise from the Human Rights Campaign. Even Log Cabin, the supposed voice of gay Republicans, was silent.
Not surprisingly, all the leading LGBT groups were quick to slam Steele a few weeks ago when, on an obscure talk radio show, he said that the GOP was not likely to officially endorse passing civil unions legislation. Log Cabin fired off a news release attacking Steele and HRC’s Joe Solmonese penned an opinion piece in Politico forcefully condemning Steele. HRC’s attacks were sad but predictable; their leadership appears comfortable in the role of lap dog for the Democratic Party. The silence by Log Cabin’s current leadership, however, is a shameful betrayal of its mission and of its grassroots members.
As HRC has become a lap dog for the Democratic Party, has Log Cabin, with the departure of Patrick Sammon, become a lap dog for the other gay organizations?
It would be nice if these gay organizations could put aside their preference for partisan politics and take note of the real progress gay people are making — in both political parties. Were these groups not so beholden to their narrative of an intolerant GOP, they might see how quickly things are improving for people like us.
Dan,
LCR has said that it will be a lapdog for whomever pays the bills.
I agree that major gay orgs with communications shops should applaud gay Republicans who genuinely support fairness. It’s not clear Michael Steele is one of those Republicans.
His record on gay issues is so completely contradictory and confusing that one isn’t sure even he knows what he believes. To admit that gay people do not choose to be gay and also completely rule out any legal protections at all for gay couples is absurd.
What Barron and LaSalvia don’t understand is that most gay people aren’t ready to jump up and high five political leaders whose sole nod toward us is to indicate they don’t support draconian anti-gay constitutional amendments. Especially when they’ve previously voiced full-throated support for the same thing at the state level.
How cowed must one be to get excited about that?
It would be nice if these gay organizations could put aside their preference for partisan politics and take note of the real progress gay people are making — in both political parties.
I can’t think of a current American politician more malodorous than Barney Frank, one who happens to be gay and is by inference and by record the most ostensibly pro-gay member of Congress. Frank is often the target of a considerable amount of attention and criticism on this blog not so much because he is a fool, liar, and crook but because he’s a gay fool, liar, and crook.
The fortunes/reputations/self-estimations of any American(s) shouldn’t rise or fall on the reputation and record of any politician and a guilt by association (or for that matter value by association) should neither be heaped upon an American nor taken on by the American himself due to the rhetoric, actions, or positions of any other, even (and perhaps particularly) a member of our political class.
Many here express support for the dual privileges of military service (repeal of DADT) and same-sex marriage. Who amongst our congressmen is a more tireless advocate for both these positions? Is this “…the real progress gay people are making…”? If not, why? If partisanship should cede to progress (however that is defined), are you advocating different standards for what are considered gay organizations of any stripe and yourselves? If so, why?
Filtered.
#2: Are you kidding? At some of the gay blogs I’ve read, Democrats say “jump” and gays say “how high?”
Unfortunately the “narrative” GPW describes was not conjured out of thin air. Michael Steele has failed so far as GOP chairman. His desire to pander to the hip-hop crowd (the black equivalent of rednecks, IMO) is bad enough, but he opposes gay marriage AND civil unions, even though ex-President Bush supports the latter. Obama has the same position. And gay bloggers give him verbal BJs for signing a U.N. declaration that is meaningless and will have no effect on gay lives anywhere. Keep in mind the U.N. is still corrupt, immoral, and hypocritical. Meanwhile he tapes a video greeting for a holiday in a country where homosexuality is punishable by death.
Both parties support marriage apartheid. By these standard, both parties are bigots. But Democrats have done nothing to deserve a free pass, and on non-gay issues they are nothing short of disastrous.
Dan, methinks this post has a lot in common with “when did the gays get so mean” as well !!
This conduct by gay organizations can be traced back to their roots in socialist organizations by Mr. Hay and others who linked homosexual political organizations to the leftwing organizations from the fifties to today. Indeed, how much of Milk movie talked about the enormous contributions of Ronald Reagan to the defeat of the pernicious Anita Bryant propositions then floating in Florida and California? Did Sean Penn thank Ronald Reagan in his acceptance speech? Sorry, I nearly spit up on my keyboard and waterboarding is not kewl.
Off-topic: I just got a Kindle 2. Is GayPatriot viewable via Whispernet (or other)?
i would take this criticism of yours (and others) more seriously if i ever read you specifically criticize republicans and/or conservatives for saying or legislating homophobic things.
Let’s try this first, boob; what qualifies as “homophobic”?
Does saying, “Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman” constitute homophobia?
Does endorsing and supporting religious leaders who oppose gay marriage constitute homophobia?
Does being opposed to gay marriage constitute homophobia?
no, comparing homosexuality to incest and bestiality (rick santorum) is homophobic.
And, of course, he didn’t actually do that. Santorum pointed out that the court was taking away the power of the people to make their own laws about sexual morality.
Tell me, is bestiality illegal for any reason other than the fact that people find it icky?
V:
1- possibility of transmission of disease. This is more well-known today… but Talmudic scholars banned the eating of pork long before trichinosis or cholesterol were even words (alternate version: I’ve slept with some women that were crazy, but never with any who might be rabid…).
2- identification of those within the community who have mental or moral diseases. Anyone who would rather get funky with the kind of chicks that wear feathers than with the kind in skirts is bound to be a nonmodel citizen in other ways too, and anything that identifies and stigmatizes them is to the benefit of all.
3- The possibility of Roseanne Barr getting lucky- even by mistaken identity- is just too much for sanity to withstand.
Guys, I’m eating dinner.
no, comparing homosexuality to incest and bestiality (rick santorum) is homophobic.
That’s odd, given that thousands of gay leftists and national gay organizations are demanding that parent-child and sibling-sibling relationships be given equivalent status to heterosexual marriage.
DaveP, 1 is invalid because people get STD’s from other people, too. 2 -3 still fall under the “people think it’s icky” rubric. 😛
The Log Cabin Club ain´t what it used to be when I joined in 1979. In 1980 we had an exodus becasue the majority voted to endorse Ronald Reagan instead of John Anderson. Our endorsemant even caught the attention of the National Enquirer.
#10: Yes to all three.
And lo and behold, you dug up that fringe group Beyond Marriage again. Two words: Ashley Madison…
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTQzYTQ3OGYzZmQ0ZmI4Yzg0NjMwZWUxMGVmZWUyNWY=
Let’s ban hetero “marriage”. Sacred institution? Ha! Until you “straight” “people” condemn this activity and demand its end by force, you don’t deserve marriage rights.
I absolutely condemn AshleyMadison.com and would support the removal of laws that decriminalize adultery for married individuals and those who facilitate it.
Just like Maggie Gallagher, just like Focus on the Family, and just like the vast and overwhelming majority of straight people — and I’m not even straight.
Beyond Marriage is not a “fringe group”, Attmay. They represent mainstream thought in the gay community. Gays like you will find here that actually think marriage means something, that believe in sexual responsibility and keeping their commitments, and so forth, are NOT in the gay mainstream and are, according to gay leaders and the gay media, “touched in the head”.
Oh, by the way, you were right. Gays are intolerant…look what they’re saying about Mary Tyler Moore:
http://www.towleroad.com/2009/03/appointment-of-john-berry-the-openly-gay-obama-nominee-to-head-the–office-of-personnel-management-to-be-swift-because-of-t.html#comments
I owe you knuckle-dragging homophobes an apology. At least you would only insult Ed Asner.
After reading what those Towleroad scumbags said about Mary Tyler Moore (especially the cracks at her diabetes, as my mother is diabetic), I apologize for the insults I have made to other posters, no matter how disgusting and vile their opinions. The last thing I want to be is like them. No wonder we lost the battle over Prop 8.
I hereby forgive heterosexuals for all their sins; they’re only human, after all. Can I become an honorary homophobe?
Maybe the best way to stop criticism of the GOP for being anti-gay is to get the GOP to stop being anti-gay. It’s in the platform. It would be easier for you to spin the Republican position on gay issues if the party weren’t intentionally hostile to gay rights.
You mean opposed to gay marriage? Like John Kerry and Barack Obama? That the anti-gay you mean?
Queerty’s record is decidedly mixed in this regard. After Michael Steele’s recent interview in which he made some decidedly pro-gay statements, they focused on the part where he was against gay marriage. Similary re: Meg Whitman. They loudly call her a homophobe even though she’s pro-civil unions (or DP, as it is in California), eBay was one of the most gay-positive companies under her leadership, solely because she supported Prop 8.
#24: No, like ostracizing and demanding resignations of those like Silly Küñ†–oops, I mean Sally Kern, who call gays “worse than terrorists”, yet every minute she goes without being murdered disproves that.