Republican-Haters Misinformed about Object of their Obsession
Sometimes, when I talk to gay activists or just plain “politically aware” gay people who support the various left-leaning national gay organizations about the RepublicanP Party, they act as if my party was dedicated to the proposition that anti-gay attitudes are integral to the GOP. These people, with a knowledge of history going back to the early years of this century, also are convinced that previously the animating spirit o the GOP was support of the subjugation of racial minorities, especially black people.
Yet, if they would spend the amount of time they spend decrying the GOP on learning about the history of American conservatism, they might realize that the real animating principle of our movement is freedom. Homosexuality is, at most, incidental to conservative ideology–and we gay conservatives have long been working to make it a non-issue.
It would just be nice if we didn’t have to spend so much time explaining to people why we prefer the GOP to people who have no clue what the party stands for. Some of these people consume a great deal of information on the web, yet remain mightily misinformed about a party they denigrate on a regular basis.
37 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
And by doing such a fantastic job of pushing back that gigantic wave of ignorance, you inspire us all.
Comment by TheGreatExperiment — July 28, 2009 @ 5:24 pm - July 28, 2009
National GOP platform: “To protect our servicemen and women and ensure that America’s Armed Forces remain the best in the world, we affirm… the incompatibility of homosexuality with military service.”
and
“Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex “marriages” licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act…” (Love the scare quotes on marriage!)
Oklahoma platform:
“We believe that in order to encourage and protect family values, those promoting homosexuality or other aberrant lifestyles, should not be allowed to hold responsible positions over children”
and
“1. We oppose the promotion of homosexuality, the elimination of laws against sodomy”
Texas platform:
p.10: Celebrating Traditional Marriage calls for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and opposes the legalization of “sodomy” ie homosexuality.
and so on…
You know, it’s just so weird how people think the GOP is anti-gay. It’s not like they put it in writing at the state and national level or or anything.
I guess I’m just “consum[ing] a great deal of information on the web yet remain[ing] mightily
misinformed about a party” so cheered by the blogger.The best part of your “defense” of the GOP is that you don’t even try. You half-heartedly try to explain why conservatism isn’t anti-gay, but you make no efforts to explain why the GOP isn’t, and as the teabaggers at Free Republic will tell you flat out: there is no automatic connection between conservatives and Republicans.
Comment by torrentprime — July 28, 2009 @ 5:30 pm - July 28, 2009
Great torrents back!! Hey bud could you explain the Obama blunders the past month?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 28, 2009 @ 6:16 pm - July 28, 2009
Democrat platform…..to hate everything American and especially righteous about the greatest country in the history of man.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 28, 2009 @ 6:18 pm - July 28, 2009
Some people would suggest the Democrat party ISN’T anti black. However most things the Democrats have done for blacks the past 50 years has destroyed the black family in America.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 28, 2009 @ 6:20 pm - July 28, 2009
I have o wonder how history is now being taught. I wonder if teachers when teaching about Abraham Lincoln, who by his Emancipation Proclamation had freed the slaves, do they teach that he was the first Republican President, and the Civil War was about preserving the Union. That would mean the student must deduce that it was the Democrats who were pro-slavery or anti-black. After the Civil War, the Republican Party was the party of the blacks. Some blacks began to abandon the Party when the Roosevelt Administratn instituted welfare. Many more followed during the civil rights struggles supported by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. What the Democrats did was to merely exchange the plantation for the ghetto, and the urban blacks thank them with their votes. The perception that the GOP is interested in subjugating minorities probably comes from the Nixon campaign, the southern strategy. Yet, it was President Nixon who was an advocate for black capitalism. During his 1968 campaign he stated ¨blacks do not want a handout, but a hand up.¨ It was he who made it possible for blacks to become entrepreneurs through easy acces to the SBA.
Comment by Roberto — July 28, 2009 @ 6:42 pm - July 28, 2009
torrentprime you are 100% correct. The Republican party is anti-gay.
No one here denies the content of the state platforms. No one here sees them as compatible with our concept of freedom.
But we realize there is more to freedom than the absence or inclusion of words on a party platform. Every one of us is free to weigh the total structure, the first priorities, the complete ideology that best determines our pursuit of happiness.
Comment by Geena — July 28, 2009 @ 6:50 pm - July 28, 2009
Great comebacks, Gene. I really think you helped sew up the holes in GPW’s argument re: the GOP and gays by attacking the Democrats, Obama, and the Democratic party’s effects on the AA community. Laser-like focus, really.
@4 is the real game-changer, though; “I know you are but what am I” is a pretty timeless argument.
Comment by torrentprime — July 28, 2009 @ 6:52 pm - July 28, 2009
Yes, Geena: there are more than words. There are actions: legislation and votes/signing/vetoes.
That’s the problem with the right-wing cries “we’re losing our freedoms!” when it comes to gay issues: they’re the ones actively trying to restrict gay people’s freedom, increase the power of the government and government intrusion into our daily lives. Shame, really.
Comment by torrentprime — July 28, 2009 @ 7:00 pm - July 28, 2009
We cannot deny the platforms. But we CAN and must become more involved in our party, so we can overcome those who would again railroad these kinds of homophobic statements. In a nod to Ashpenaz in a previous post, the “fundamentalists” have highjacked the Republican Party. They are not the majority, but they are the most vocal, and they vote. They also work at the local level, and that’s where the political power is. WE CAN DO THE SAME! Most Christians and Jews just haven’t the time nor inclination to be actively homophobic. The point is, let’s not deny we and other americans have let a few loud ill-informed fundamentalists run the show. Get involved locally! As Tip O’Neal said, “all politics are local”. Bring our GOP back to what we really stand for.
Comment by Man — July 28, 2009 @ 7:11 pm - July 28, 2009
we affirm… the incompatibility of homosexuality with military service.
And here’s why.
A predominantly gay gym in the Castro closed its cruisy steam room indefinitely last week after receiving “numerous complaints” of sexual activity and a health department warning.
Next:
We believe that in order to encourage and protect family values, those promoting homosexuality or other aberrant lifestyles, should not be allowed to hold responsible positions over children
And here’s why.
Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday’s kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall.
Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men……
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children.
And finally:
Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress.
And here’s why.
To have our government define as “legitimate families” only those households with couples in conjugal relationships does a tremendous disservice to the many other ways in which people actually construct their families, kinship networks, households, and relationships. For example, who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy?
– Single parent households
– Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner
– Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households….
Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others.
In short, given that gays like you, torrentprime, use your sexual orientation as an excuse for public promiscuity, child sexual exploitation, and denigrating marriage as unworthy and no better than anything else, it should be no surprise that gays are pandered to by Obama Party members, who see nothing wrong with any of that, and opposed by Republican Party members, who rightly see all of that as disruptive and destructive to public health, children, and society.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 28, 2009 @ 7:15 pm - July 28, 2009
Finally, torrentprime, your whining about losing your freedoms is rightly exposed as outright hypocrisy.
Since gay-sex liberals like yourself endorse and support Obama Party members as pro-gay for doing exactly that which you criticize in Republicans, it should be obvious to anyone that your whines and cries about “gay rights” and “equality” are merely your cowardly rationalizations for your complete and total servitude to the Obama Party.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 28, 2009 @ 7:19 pm - July 28, 2009
why is it when NDT starts spouting his ired old drivel, I get this creepy feeling that he is actually the spawn of Larry Craig, or worse yet, one of those Larry Craig Bathroom pickups. . .but in the immortal words of Craig. . .NOT GAY
Comment by rusty — July 28, 2009 @ 10:14 pm - July 28, 2009
#13: And then there’s rusty–criticizing NDT for “spouting his [t]ired old drivel,” and then one comma later pulling out those fresh, edgy, incoherent Larry Craig zingers.
Comment by Sean A — July 28, 2009 @ 11:02 pm - July 28, 2009
why is it when NDT starts spouting his ired old drivel, I get this creepy feeling that he is actually the spawn of Larry Craig, or worse yet, one of those Larry Craig Bathroom pickups. . .but in the immortal words of Craig. . .NOT GAY
Simple, rusty; it’s the same reason you used to scream and throw temper tantrums when your parents told you to do something. Unlike them, though, I am not nearly as weak and spineless or inclined to give you your way simply because you start namecalling me.
In the circles in which you run, rusty, I’ve no doubt that you and yours make such comparisons as a regular and usual method of shutting up anyone who would dare criticize your behavior. However, I would rather be compared to Larry Craig than stand by and support people who have promiscuous public sex, dress children as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs, and publicly denigrate marriage.
It all boils down to whether you consider it more important to be right or to be popular with gay leftists, and the former is infinitely preferable to the latter.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 29, 2009 @ 12:28 am - July 29, 2009
torrent – not sure why I bother but here’s the news: neither party is perfect (if you think the Dems are perfect then you’ve spent too much time in front of the Obamatron).
But conservatism is far more compatible with liberty then is liberalism. Sure, there are elements of various GOP platform documents that I think are bunk but, IMO, the base threats to liberty that I see originate from the left. Let’s see – off the top of my head:
- Punitive, redistributive taxation
- Thoughtcrime laws; restrictions on political speech
- Draconian “cap and trade” laws based on junk science
- Government control of medical care
- Never-ending racial grievance mongering
- Multiculturalism
- Corruption on an industrial scale
- Social policies that bear terrible human costs
- Appeasement of dangerous regimes
- Reckless fiscal policy (Treasury will try to sell $200 billion in debt just this week)
And all that just in the last week or two.
The GOP is much closer to my ideals than is the Democrat party.
Comment by SoCalRobert — July 29, 2009 @ 12:34 am - July 29, 2009
Bottom line….
Lots of Republicans welcome me as a gay man who is a conservative. Democrats view me as a weird odd retard who has no right being anything but a plantation liberal Democrat like all the other gays.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 29, 2009 @ 12:52 am - July 29, 2009
Oh the mess TP would have if liberals didn’t lie about who they are and what they believe. Unfortunately for him, too many times they tell us who they are.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 29, 2009 @ 12:59 am - July 29, 2009
Lets not forget the actions of the Democrat party vs. the words of the Republican Party.
- Passed DADT
- Passed DOMA
- Supported Proposition 8
- Supported Partial Birth Abortion (Also known as ‘crush the skulll 3 inches from birth)
-Oppose the ‘infants born alive act’
-Support discrimination against people based on the colour of their skin (See Ricci)
-Support nationalization of large sections of the economy.
-Support taking the results of the labor of some, to give it to others.
-Support Dictatorships (Iran) Banana republics (Honduras, Chicago)
-Support the destruction of wealth on shaky ‘science’ (Cap and Trade)
-Support taxing the dead.
And we can toss in their words as well.
Justice Ginsberg’s words on abortion.
Peter Singers entire career
And that’s not including Michelle Obama’s ‘for the first time in my life, I’m proud of my country’ The administration’s ‘Human Rights don’t matter’ mantra. Rahm Emanuel’s call for mandatory national service, etc.
Or to put it another way, the state Republican platforms don’t want you to bugger in public. The national Democrat party actions don’t want you to exist
You may disagree with the state platforms, and if you do I strongly advise you to lobby to change them in your state, or move.
Comment by The Livewire — July 29, 2009 @ 7:05 am - July 29, 2009
#19: Excellent list and great points, The Livewire. By the way, I’m completely in favor of tormenting the abortion-on-demand hags by countering their Orwellian euphemisms with terms that truthfully describe the gruesome procedures they support, i.e., “crush the baby’s skull at birth abortion.” Ann Coulter called those harpies on the carpet when she wrote about their petulance over the term “partial birth abortion,” and their preference for “late-term abortion.” Coulter correctly observed that the procedure is so barbaric and Mengele-ish that they need layers of euphemisms to distance themselves from it because even “partial birth abortion” IS A EUPHEMISM.
Comment by Sean A — July 29, 2009 @ 12:40 pm - July 29, 2009
I agree! Good list. Unfortunately, we are doing a poor job reaching out to our gay confreres. Attacks, name-calling, etc., are not useful in changing people’s opinions.The pandering by the republican party to “fundamentalists” which are not representative of either christians or republicans also must stop!
Gays seem to have swallowed the story that republicans are all anti-gay.Surely they have other concerns! I have no problems if gays support the Dems from their own liberal beliefs. Unfortunately, I think most gays’ overriding issue is equality, and they think the Dems give a better chance to right this wrong. I can understand and even agree on the civil rights issue, but disagree the Dems will be our savior.
Having said all that, I’m hoping Olson’s team can prevail in the Supreme Court.
What can be done?
Comment by Man — July 29, 2009 @ 2:23 pm - July 29, 2009
Interesting, Man.
I’m against Olsen and co challenging prop 8 in the courts because I do think it should be settled by the states through the leigslative process.
Comment by The_Livewire — July 29, 2009 @ 2:53 pm - July 29, 2009
Livewire, I favor federal action because I believe our rights are God-given as stated in our nation’s founding documents. As such, I believe we already possess the rights, although jurisdictions do not yet acknowledge them. Therefore, a supreme court ruling acknowledging and protecting the rights is far better than legislative actions. What the legislatures give they can also take away.
In addition, state legislatures cannot grant to us the many federal benefits currently enjoyed by hetero couples.
That being said, any progress on either front will be welcome!
Comment by Man — July 29, 2009 @ 3:04 pm - July 29, 2009
Hear! Hear! Man @ #21 and #23.
Comment by DRH — July 30, 2009 @ 12:51 am - July 30, 2009
#23,
Ok, thats’ where we differ. We have a Divine given right to enter into contracts with other consenting adults. I don’t deny that. However, we’ve never had an inalienable right to marriage being recognized by any state or federal government.
Even if we did, I’d argue that you and I have the exact same access to a state recognized marriage. Being married to one person at a time, subject to the restrictions and limitations of the state of origin.
Comment by The Livewire — July 30, 2009 @ 7:12 am - July 30, 2009
In our system, we acknowledge governments don’t confer rights. God has done that . However, so far government has failed to provide equal protection of our rights. This is the redress we are seeking. Legislatures can adopt marriage laws so long as they don’t conflict with our inalienable rights.
Comment by Man — July 30, 2009 @ 1:07 pm - July 30, 2009
Man,
And that sums up the slippery slope argument in a nut shell.
If you’re a ‘right’ to marry a guy, do you have a right to marry two guys? Or two guys and a girl (and a pizza place)? What about animals? Nutjobs like Peter Sanger might make that arguement. What about NAMBLA? Age of consent varies wildly already in the states. I think it’s LA that has an age of consent of 13, so why not 12? or 8?
I know a couple of polyamourous groups (a polyamorous ‘couple’ is an oxymoron). They take the Divine given ‘right’ to live their lives in peace, and to enjoy each others company. They don’t expect a government right to recognize their group as a ‘family’, even though they’ve outlived *both* of my marriages. (me jealous? no…).
The same thing currently applies with my partner. We share an apartment, I’m an heir on her insurance and her on mine, we have POA, etc. We’re not married. Why? Well one, we don’t have a relationship that reaches that sacrement, but two we choose not to.
Again, you have the exact same access to the government recognized institution of marriage that I have. How is that discriminatory?
Comment by The Livewire — July 30, 2009 @ 2:46 pm - July 30, 2009
Said by The Livewire:
“However, we’ve never had an inalienable right to marriage being recognized by any state or federal government.”
No, but I do expect my government to catch up.
Also said:
“Again, you have the exact same access to the government recognized institution of marriage that I have. How is that discriminatory?”
Surely you can figure that out.
Comment by DRH — July 30, 2009 @ 5:27 pm - July 30, 2009
Your right to have everyone pretend there is no difference between a gay couple and a straight couple is god given?
thats one kooky crazy god.
Comment by American Elephant — July 31, 2009 @ 5:04 am - July 31, 2009
In other words, DRH can’t refute that he (I assume he) has the exact same right I do.
(Aside, to the poster known as Man, I’m waiting for your reply. We’ve been rather civil on this topic, and I do value your input, even while I disagree with it)
Comment by The Livewire — July 31, 2009 @ 7:04 am - July 31, 2009
The general Republican pro-liberty angle is an important and oft-overlooked one.
The Real Pro-Gay Party:
http://www.scottspiegel.com/2009/05/17/the-real-pro-gay-party/
Comment by Scott Spiegel — July 31, 2009 @ 3:16 pm - July 31, 2009
Livewire, I’m not sure which post you are asking about. I do NOT accept the argument that if one believes one would have a constitutional right to same-sex marriage one must also accept polyamourous (what a moniker) marriage.
I think the Loving verdict is clear. It’s about two persons.
Civility is always expected in discourse. Even among obviously educated contributors, I’m surprised to see incivility.
If I”ve replied to the wrong post, pls let me know.
Regards
Comment by Man — July 31, 2009 @ 5:18 pm - July 31, 2009
I understand you don’t see the merit in the slippery slope arguement, Man. But by making the arguement that marriage is an inalienable right, I don’t see how it can be avoided.
And, as an aside, if the Loving verdict is ‘clear’ then doesn’t that mean Baker v. Nelson is clear as well and SSM isn’t a ‘right’?
I just like to point out civility on the internet because too many discussions degrade into arguements and name calling. I like to highlight where people can disagree without calling the other a poopy head
Comment by The_Livewire — August 1, 2009 @ 10:28 am - August 1, 2009
The Livewire,
I’d agree we both have equal access to “traditional marriage”, but we are both denied access to same-sex marriage. Even worse, we are denied anything which even tries to approximate traditional marriage in many places. In my view, it is a true tragedy that the federal government will not recognize our families. That lack of recognition helps feed our opponents.
Furthermore, I will remain highly suspicious of the Republican party until it rejects the influence of the Religious Right movement. That influence has pushed the party away from core principles.
Comment by DRH — August 1, 2009 @ 12:43 pm - August 1, 2009
“Furthermore, I will remain highly suspicious of the Republican party until it rejects the influence of the Religious Right movement. That influence has pushed the party away from core principles”
DRH, all political parties follow the money trail; regretfully republicans included.
Two decades ago, fundamentalists decided to elect candidates who would advance their causes. To do this they made their political views known, they donated money to those candidates with whom they agreed, and they got involved in local party precincts to have clout in party decision-making, including the decisions to insert language with which we disagree into the platforms.
Persons on the left have done exactly the same in the Democratic party. Substantial funding has come from trial lawyers’ associations, media groups, entertainment, etc.
So I submit: 1. If you agree with a party’s core principals, get involved. Become a precinct chair (they are begging for people to take these positions!), put your money where your mouth is, and work, work, work.
2. No one can agree with each and every position in any party. Witness the Blue Dogs.Witness US who disagree with anti-gay platform language. But if enough of us are willing to be involved in the Republican party, we can make a real change. Don’t you realize many elected republicans dislike the tactics of the fundamentalists? Yet as practical politicians they know who will work for and donate to their cause.
Give the fundamentalists credit . . . they have earned a right to be heard. We also must earn the right. And merely complaining to other gays does not earn for us the right to be heard in the political marketplace.
Comment by Man — August 1, 2009 @ 3:42 pm - August 1, 2009
[...] It’s amazing how misinformed these critics are about the object of their derision. [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » To Critics of Republicans:Show me the Legislation where GOP pushes its beliefs on others — August 3, 2009 @ 11:02 pm - August 3, 2009
Ah.. after reading this article, I am starting to see where you are coming from. I laughed out loud because after I read this, I thought, YES, he gets it!
Ignorance sadly is on both sides of the fence. As a GOP, I love a good debate, but normally I can’t find a well informed DEMOCRAT to battle with. I end up just watching Sons of Anarchy or something.
This site makes me smile. I needed to smile today. Glad I found you.
Kimmy
Comment by Kimmy — August 29, 2009 @ 8:58 pm - August 29, 2009