It is all but impossible to attend a gay confab without the leaders touting their commitment to diversity, singing paeans to the ideal of diversity or apologizing for not being diverse enough. And sure enough, at most such confabs, you’ll see that there are representatives from a great variety of gay interest groups, from transgender activists to spokespeople of associations of any number of ethnic groups.
One group which you almost never see represented is Republicans even as GOP candidates continue to win a greater share of the gay vote.
And given how Republicans have overwhelming opposed state recognition of same-sex marriage, you’d think that gay activists would want to target this demographic as a source of support for their initiatives. After all, if it was the failure of their outreach efforts which caused voters to approve Prop 8 last fall, they failed most spectacularly among Republicans.
Indeed, the Golden State’s leading gay activist group, Equality California, routinely touts its commitment to diversity with its Executive Director Geoff Kors boasting yesterday that “18 [recently-hired] field organizers that reflect the diversity of California.” Actually, they don’t. In a state where 34.3% of registered voters identify as Republicans, representatives of the EqCA could not identify a single Republican among those new hires. If they were truly committed to diversity, they would have made sure to include Republicans among their supposedly diverse cadre of field organizers,
In response to my query about the number of Republicans in this number, Jay Davis, EqCA “Online Community Director” wrote,
We don’t have an exact number of our field organizers who are Republicans. We don’t ask about political affiliation when we hire. I can say, having met all of our organizers, that they represent a number of different points of view.
While they say their field organizers reflect the diversity of the state, they also say they’re not interested in political diversity.
Look, they’re the ones who tout how diverse they are. They raised the issue, but that they didn’t concern themselves with political diversity shows just what a sham their commitment to diversity is.
And who will hold them to account? The mainstream media is barely aware that gay Republicans actually exist. And the gay groups are used to getting a pass from Log Cabin whose leadership for all long was more eager to appease the gay leadership than challenge their prejudices.
There is, to be sure, much to commend in the efforts Equality California has made to canvass voters and listen to different voices in the gay community. It’s too bad they refuse to include Republican voices in the diversity of opinion they consider.
In some states, such as the one I live in, it’s illegal to ask someone’s political affiliation. While I agree that they need to be reaching out to other’s viewpoints, I think asking them to give a quota of Republican employees is just as heinous as filling quotas or affirmative action. It’s none of your business, Bruce, and you should be able to make your point other ways.
Um, Tim, do you ever read my posts?
If they weren’t touting how diverse their field organizers were, I wouldn’t have written the post. They’re the ones advertising their diversity; I’m the one criticizing their hypocrisy.
And I’m Dan not Bruce.
Sorry, Dan.
I don’t know California law that well, but I’d be willing to bet they are required to collect certain information such as employee’s race, gender etc. However, I’ve never seen a job application that asked my political affiliation. I would imagine it’s regarded similar to religion.
When they tout “diversity” they are doing so on the grounds of statuses that people belong to that they were born with and had no control over, not who they vote for. You may see their lack of diversity through an outsider’s view, but you’re comparing apples to oranges. And honestly, no one is barring your participation. Just because they don’t actively seek it doesn’t make it “discriminatory.”
Tim, I’m making a point about the hypocrisy of the term, “diversity.” (Please consider the title to the post to which you address your comment.) I t’s a sham when you define diversity as they do by various “statuses” (as you put it), but leave out politics.
There’s background to this as well. It comes from having attended (and receiving invitations to) various political events around the Golden State on how to respond to the passage of Prop 8. On none of the official programs of any of these events have they included Republicans.
No one is barring my participation? Huh? What’s that supposed to mean? I could care less if they include me or not. I do care that have excluded Republicans. (I’m far from the only gay Republicans in the Golden State.)
Once again, they’re the ones who raised the issue of diversity.
Given that those elected GOP politicans who have supported gay rights in some ways have been punished by the base (Huntsman, etc) why on earth do you think that GOP pols would be willing to go on record as supporting gay rights? The rabid GOP base will punish them for showing such signs of moderation. You’re pretending that it’s the fault of the gay rights for not letting the GOP in, when the base has shown they’ll kick out any one who show any kindness towards our kind. You have never addressed the OK and TX state platforms that want our very sexual activity outlawed, yet you pretend that gay rights groups have some duty to seek out Republicans.
I do care that have excluded Republicans.
Prove this, please. Name one Republican that tried, in any way, to attend, participate, help, or otherwise join Equality CA and was denied access. We’ll wait.
Um, torrent, you really need to learn reading comprehension. This is not about politicians, but about a commitment to diversity. (Did you consider the title?)
Where did I talk about Republican politicians in this post (or my commentary thereto)? So, what’s the relevance of bringing up Huntsman?
I’m not asking them to include GOP leaders, but suggesting they go around such leaders and appeal directly to rank-and-file Republicans. No, they likely won’t get a majority of the Republican vote, but with the right campaign, they could get an additional 10-15% of GOP voters to change their minds–and that would have been more than enough to flip th results on Prop 8 last fall.
As to you last barb, once again, your failure to read amuses me to no end. Please read my comment above where I discuss “official programs.” It’s not that they deny access to Republicans (as audience members), it’s that they don’t solicit our opinions and fail include us in panel discussions which are supposed to reflect the diversity of the community.
You’re so prejudiced against me, you can’t even comprehend my points. I constantly have to repeat them back to you in response to your every comment.
But, thank you once again, for helping confirming one of my observations about certain gay leftists. You make Rush Limbaugh seem broad-minded.
Gay diversity–all the colors from mauve to violet.
“18 [recently-hired] field organizers that reflect the diversity of California.”
Nevermind some (if not all) are probably more incompetent than other candidates. Skin color was all that mattered.
Gay diversity–all the colors from mauve to violet.
*Rolls eyes* Gay diversity simply means the inclusion of anyone who looks good and will go to bed with you. If you don’t have the “look”, wear the right kind of clothes, vote for the right party etc. etc. etc. “diversity” goes bye-bye.
Can we get libs to watch The Death Camp of Tolerance over and over?
If you don’t realize it then I’ll let you know… many heterosexual conservatives support you because we recognize bigotry when it it thrust upon us. Five years from now this will be moot. Give the church a little more time to adjust to the real world and all will be well.
Dan, you’re a rude asshole.
“(Please consider the title to the post to which you address your comment.)”
“Um, torrent, you really need to learn reading comprehension.”
“Um, Tim, do you ever read my posts?”
People can disagree with what you’re writing without you being a condescending douche. I and others can find other blogs to spend our time reading if this is the best treatment you can muster for those who disagree with you.
#10 – Tim, if you think that Dan’s comments like the ones you quoted are “rude,” then you obviously haven’t been reading the likes of Tano’s, gillie’s, torrenpine’s, rusty’s etc.
Dan is a model of civility compared to those guys.
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
Well, Tim, whatever fair criticism you might raise about my tone, you undermine with your name-calling.
Perhaps, you’re right and my tone is a bit snarky. (And I don’t disagree that it can be sometimes.) But, I didn’t call you a name as you did me. I do agree that people can disagree with my writing without being, as you put it, a “condescending douche.”
But, it becomes particularly annoying (particularly with torrentprime to whom one of those barbs was directed) to have to address points based not on what I said but on (in torrent’s case) a narrow-minded view of conservatives. And in this particular case of his bringing up issues totally unrelated to the issue at hand–and out right missing the point of the post.
All too often our critics see our posts as excuses to vent against conservatives rather than engage the ideas expressed (in the post to which they attach their comment). Perhaps, you’re onto something. Maybe I do react as if all critics were like torrent eager to attack without even bothering to consider what I’ve said.
I might actually consider you criticism had you not engaged in name-calling.
But, then again, considering the length of this comment, well, I show you a bit more respect than you showed me.
Dan,
The whole point of the name calling was to draw attention to your dismissive tone. Yes, I realized the irony of my post as I was typing it, but that was sort of the point. Give me more credit as a reader. Assume I’m not a complete idiot and maybe, by calling you a name in a post about tone of exchange, I was making a point. Not just trying to be a meany head since I would ever disagree with you.
I, and most others here have the ability to see the other side of things and disagree fairly and impersonably. However, you seem to take every disagreement personally and react with your usual snark and circumstance. It’s off-putting as a reader. I like more intellectually challenging and direct, or even humorous observations, as opposed to always soured and bitter ones.
Peter, “other people are meaner” isn’t that convincing an argument. Sort of like, it’s ok if Obama is shit cause Bush was bad! Address the point, not dismiss it because others do the same.
As per the original point, what you’re still asking for is basically, illegal. You are mad because diversity doesn’t include political thought. What would you like ideally, bud? Everyone on the payroll for every charitable organization to take a Nolan chart test and hiring quotas to make sure it’s representative of the area? Affirmative action for Republicans? Again, no one was barring you from the organization. Last I checked, freedom of assembly was still a protected right under the First Amendment.
You can have a legitimate beef with prop 8 people not reaching out to Republicans. But criticizing them as “hypocritical” for not proving it with quotas seems a horrible way to prove it.
Tim, I think the length of my comment (as well as the e-mail I sent you thanking you for chiming in) shows that I do take you seriously.
And I agree you’re onto something with your criticism. Sometimes, when I’m tired or just frustrated by the volume of e-mail I receive, I have on occasion lashed out int he comments section. It becomes particularly frustrating when I take time to craft a post and find someone commenting on something that just isn’t there or otherwise misrepresenting my point or flat-out ignoring something I already said in the post to which they attach their comments.
And despite your name-calling, I did take your remarks to heart.
As per the original point, I’m not asking every charitable organization to ask about diversity. I’m not asking for Affirmative Action. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of EqCA, an organization which touts how diverse it is, yet regularly excludes Republicans.
And no, they’re not barring me from the organization, but they are excluding Republicans from active participation in the forums they sponsor. Go back through my gay marriage archives and find the posts where I addressed the official programs at the various events held in the wake of the passage of Prop 8 (some linked in this post). Although Republicans represent one-third of registered California voters (and at least one-quarter of gay voters), they did not include a single Republican on any of the panels. (Even some of my liberal acquaintances connected to the gay movement in LA agree with me on the folly of this exclusion, with at least two going so far as to raise the issue with the EqCA Board–addressed in a previous post.)
That is, we were not part of the official program.
Not just that, Geoff Kors, EqCA’s Executive Director, has a long history of badmouthing Republicans.
Let me repeat the point of this post – the sham of the notion of diversity that focuses on politically correct notion of the term. As I wrote in my e-mail to you, “f ethnic diversity is a good thing in a political organization designed to appeal to the general electorate, then wouldn’t political diversity be better.”
And the context–the regular exclusion of Republicans from panels on repealing Prop 8.
It’s all fine and dandy that they let us attend their meetings, but why should we go if they’re not interested in soliciting our views? (–as per this post–http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/05/31/should-republicans-boycott-gay-confabs/)
So, finally, I’m not asking for quotas. Recall, I’m just showing the hypocrisy of their use of the term, “diversity.” If they had not touted how diverse they are, I would not have posted on this.
And please don’t call me “mad” about this for I’m not. I’m amused by the hypocrisy and intolerance of EqCA.
Is it illegal to ask about political affiliation for an organization with political ends? I doubt it–and believe such a law would violate the free association clause of the First Amendment.
If I am at all angry, it’s in the comment threat for I thought my title got at the point I was trying to get across–about the sham notion of a diversity based entirely and exclusively on ethnicity, yet which includes a uniformity of political perspective.
Although I consider myself more of a moderate/conservative than I do a liberal, I think it’s necessary to point out that, for the most part, Conservatives have often attacked those they do not like, or do not want to understand, for a very long part of history. I’ve been reading many of your posts, and, as an American, I am glad you are expressing your constitutionally given right of free speech.
That being said, I see a lot of hypocricy in many of this sites authors/readers. It appears that, the majority of gays/liberals/leftists are disrespectful and hateful towards conservatives. According to many opinions I’ve read on this site, that is just totally wrong! However, the hate, disrespect or misinformation spewed from the mouths of conservatives should be “understood.” “They have the right to their beliefs. I feel that many people who post on this site are hypocritical. Being a conservative does not mean HATING everything liberal? If something is a liberal idea, but a good idea, than it should be supported. And, if something is a conservative idea and a good idea, that, too, should be supported.
Regarding this article, you seem to have a very negative view of those supporting diversity. You mention how they are not interested in political diversity. So, let me ask this:
1) Do you believe many conservative republicans would attend this event if invited and SUPPORT the views of those organizing this event?
2) How often do conservative republicans seek the support of Liberal gays when holding conventions on supporting “family values?”
3) Is the NRA a bunch of hypocrites for not inviting gun control advocates to join thier cause?
4) Are Republicans, who value the almost sacred nature of the US Constitution UN-American when they propose Amending the Constitution so that it states Marriage should be between a man and a women? How is that any different than the “activist judges” they accuse of not supporting the constitution?
Do I believe that everything the left and mainstream gays do is alright? Of course not. As for as mainstream gays go, I feel, as a Christian Quaker, that there is too much emphasis on sexual freedom and note enough emphasis on sexual responsibility. I have been with the same man now for 17 years and believe that, even though there is temptation everywhere, true love can help keep us from destructive lifestyle choices. As far as the left, I think it is wrong that many support unlimited immigration. I can go on and on, but I think I should end it here.
The reason I even started to browse this site was because it was refreshing to see gay and patriot in the same sentence. But being a Patriot, and a Gay Patriot especially, does not mean accepting all conservative principles at face value and totally disregarding liberal principles. I am a Christian, and I am proud. And I suspect many people who contribute to this site are, too (though obviously other’s can be Patriots and not be Christian). But for those of us who are Christian, and proud Americans, it is against our Savior to bare false witness purposely.
Umm, Vinney, I think you have a sick image of what it means to be Christian. One CANNOT be homosexual AND christian. If you actually read the Bible, you will see that they are totally imcompatible. It’s obvious that the Christian-hating, liberal media makes homosexuality appear normal, but even most conservatives are hypocrites when it comes to appeasing the homosexual activists. Some are even supporting “Civil Unions” or “Domestic Partner” benefits for homosexuals. I’m sorry, but if you support civil unions or domestic partner benefits, guess what: you are supporting homosexual marriage! The biggest mistake this country has ever made was when it decriminalized homosexual conduct. You have to give the Satanic Muslim countries credit: when it comes to punishing homosexuals, they at least give homosexuals their “just desserts!”