Gay Patriot Header Image

Are gay Groups Really Indifferent to Increasing Acceptance of Gay Conservatives by the American Right?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:18 pm - January 16, 2010.
Filed under: Gay America,Gay PC Silliness,Gay Politics,GOProud

In observing the silence (with a few notable exceptions) of gay organizations and activists about the noble example set by Dick Cheney from the moment his daughter Mary came out to him, through his tenure as Vice President and continuing to this very day, we learned about the true nature of those activists.  They were less interested in changing attitudes toward gay people than promoting an image of an intolerant right-wing.

Any group (or individual) which regularly addressed gay issues and which was truly concerned about the treatment of gay people in American society would commend the conservative Vice President for the example he set, accepting his daughter as she is, welcoming her same-sex partner into their family, including her in public events as he would include his straight daughter’s husband.

To be sure, much (but not all) of the intolerance and hatred of gay people in America occurs on the right, but, as any gay individual involved in the conservative movement over the past twenty years has observed, there is an increasing openness to people like us.  First, we were just tolerated as long as we kept our private lives to ourselves, now we’re often welcomed, even when we represent a gay auxiliary or blog.

The CPAC contretemps over the inclusion of GOProud represents, in many ways, a major milestone in the history of the gay right, indeed is illustrative of the state of mainstream conservatives today.  A conservative organization seeks to include both social conservatives and gay conservatives.  The extreme social conservatives raise a ruckus.  And the conservative organization which won’t yield to their request to exclude the gay group.

If their goal were the general welfare of gay people in American today, gay groups would be singing hosannas, praising CPAC for it actions and commending GOProud for participating as a gay organization in a conservative confab.  It shows just how far we’ve come in such a short time.  But, in looking for praise from the leading gay groups, my google searches came up blank, as did my queries using the search engines on their websites.   Guess they’re just not interested in the changing attitudes of American conservatives.  And the continual improvement in the lives of gay Americans.  That more and more of us, even those harboring conservative political beliefs, can live openly as gay men and women.

Shouldn’t gay activists be pleased when the political ideology, supposedly least open to “sexual minorities,” sides with a gay group in a contretemps with a leading right-wing institution?

Share

36 Comments

  1. You mentioned that you are a “Gay organization” working for the “general welfare of the Gay community”. How? By supporting the legality of discrimination against Gays? Supporting zero candidates that are in favor of repealing ENDA? Supporting zero candidates that publically support reuniting transnational Gay families?

    Let me guess. I’ll get a litany of stuff unrelated to Gay rights issues (guns, obama’s birth certificate, abortion, and tax reforms that do nothing for the Gay community save for third derivative).

    You don’t support any issues of importance to the Gay mainstream. You don’t stand up against any Republican, regardless of how anti-Gay they are. Why should anyone in the Gay mainstream care what you guys do?

    So, congrats on getting to pay for a conference where you’ll be banned from speaking because you are Gay.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — January 16, 2010 @ 7:40 pm - January 16, 2010

  2. I think you are right that it is a good sign on the part of conservatives AND a sad sign of the state of affairs on the Left.

    As someone who started life as a liberal and grew up to become conservative, I’ve experienced both sides of the spectrum. I have always loved and supported my gay friends (I even had fag-hag status). I now embrace conservative values but have never considered who you love to be a political value. Rather I believe love is a human condition and should be respected regardless of ones politics.

    My husband and I know many gay conservatives here and in the UK and we are proud of them. We also have many gay liberal friends and we are proud of them although we disagree on their politics.

    Acceptance of all good. law-abiding citizens is one of the first principles of the United States and conservatism. Failure at this is an Epic Fail.

    Comment by Kristen Murray — January 16, 2010 @ 8:07 pm - January 16, 2010

  3. Dan,

    I think the gay left groups you investigated are plenty interested “in the changing attitudes of American conservatives,” not just the way you want them to be.

    Change in the direction you see is not favorable to the gay left. It will tend to deprive them of an enemy to rail against.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — January 16, 2010 @ 8:15 pm - January 16, 2010

  4. I agree that most gay leftist groups will simply ignore it. It doesn’t play the way they want it to.

    The best way, I believe, for gays in thrall to the left to get more in touch with reality is to do exactly what they keep advising straight conservatives to do: actually get to know more real people. If they knew some actual straight conservatives as real human beings, they would come to see that not all straight conservatives hate them.

    None of the straight conservatives I know abandoned me when I came out as a lesbian. All have been very supportive of me. This is because they are human beings, first and foremost, just like we are.

    Beware of people with a political agenda. If it involves the manipulation of the masses (as nearly all political agendas do), then its devotees are probably willing to stoop to almost anything.

    Comment by Lori Heine — January 16, 2010 @ 8:26 pm - January 16, 2010

  5. Oh, Tom in Lazybrook.

    Does the Lazy also refer to the state of your mind? (Just a rhetorical question.)

    Dan’s post wasn’t about GOProud itself. But you just had to make it so. Your bitter, angry leftist mind can’t stand the thought that anyone on Earth disagrees with you in the slightest. Those gay Republicans are so evil, aren’t they?

    So GOProud supports “the legality of discrimination against Gays”? They don’t support “any issues of importance to the Gay mainstream”? Really? I thought part of what had the religious right upset with them is their desire to end DADT. I thought their desire to keep an anti-SSM amendment out of the federal constitution had the conservative Christians in a tizzy. Do you bother to know anything about the people you criticize, or do you just reflexively spout off whenever conservatives or Republicans are mentioned? (Another rhetorical question.)

    Do you realize how pathetic it is to spew a lot of accusations that come solely from your own fevered imagination? (Rhetorical again.)

    Let me guess. I’ll get a litany of stuff unrelated to Gay rights issues…

    Here we go again! Another SELFISH social issues voter more interested in the government validating his lifestyle than in the common welfare.

    Why the hell shouldn’t the GOProud folks or anyone else put political principles above the interests of their “community” based on ethnicity, sexuality, religious belief, or whatever else? (I’m not saying GOProud is necessarily doing so, just asking why they shouldn’t.)

    Anyway, Tom, thanks for pointing out just how lefties think: Gay mainstream = Gay Left. For lefties, leftist thinking is the be all and end all of everything.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — January 16, 2010 @ 8:42 pm - January 16, 2010

  6. You know, Tom, before you start commenting with all your guns blazing, why don’t you take a time to familiarize yourself with my view on gay issues.

    My, my, my, you do harbor a lot of animosity and do seem to find an outlet in attacking us. It’s too bad you’re not using this opportunity to engage those with whom you disagree.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — January 17, 2010 @ 2:37 am - January 17, 2010

  7. Sorry, I must have missed where the Bush-Cheney administration supported gay people, other Cheney’s daughter and a gay ambassador. To me, the Bush-Cheney administration’s support for an anti-gay amendment to the US Constitution trumps Cheney inviting his daughter’s partner to a state dinner.

    Comment by Dan — January 17, 2010 @ 4:02 am - January 17, 2010

  8. Guess one Dan missed it when in 2004, Vice President Cheney publicly said that he opposed the FMA, the first time that sitting VP disagreed with his boss.

    We blame the even-handed reporting in the gay media. Yeah, Dan, you did miss it. My guess though is that you miss a lot of things.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — January 17, 2010 @ 4:12 am - January 17, 2010

  9. Sorry, I must have missed where the Bush-Cheney administration supported gay people,

    Guess you missed it when Bush stated his view on gay marriage, which happens to be the same as many of the liberal leaders. Guess you had your head shoved further up your ass when Obama hangs out with homophobic bigots.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 17, 2010 @ 5:42 am - January 17, 2010

  10. YOu know, myself as a Straight, white, conservative, red state male (Guess I hit all of the liberal nonos) have noticed that the people who crow most ab0ut tolerance are some of the most bigoted, least tolerant people I have ever met, willing to consign entire groups to caricatures at the drop of a hat. I don’t give two flying flips what one willing person does with another willing person, if no force or fraud is involved. I have some disagreements with the particular route people are taking on some of those issues, but whatever disagreements I have don’t outweigh, by far, the commonalities. I have had it up to here with ‘social engineering’ coming from left OR right.

    Comment by Ryan — January 17, 2010 @ 8:03 am - January 17, 2010

  11. (THis is obviously directed at commenter #1)

    Comment by Ryan — January 17, 2010 @ 8:06 am - January 17, 2010

  12. Not flooding the board, but, Tom in Lazybrook, if you ever want to get those important issues passed, its people like ME that you need to be engaging, many of whom would have no problem with a good number of things you desire. .if you weren’t to busy bashing us over the head with an “Evil stick’ to have us bother. And if you weren’t so busy firmly tying your ‘issues’ to other things we truly CAN’T accept – ie, to far left liberalism. By turning it into a liberal issue, you are shooting yourself in the foot. Repeatedly. With a machingun.

    Comment by Ryan — January 17, 2010 @ 8:10 am - January 17, 2010

  13. Lazy of Tombrook is merely saying that the amorphous “gay agenda” rules supreme over all other considerations and if you do not agree you are an Uncle Sellout.

    Good on you, Lazy of Tombrook. Once you conquer the nation with statism and the rules of “proper thinking” you can then ferret out the gays who hung out with the conservatives and send them to camp Pol Pot for extra special reeducation.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 17, 2010 @ 10:11 am - January 17, 2010

  14. So, Tom in Lazybrook is just another lefty fag willing to trade away freedom and liberty for a piece of paper from a bureaucracy saying “the state validates your relationship.” And he is baffled that some people think limited government, fiscal responsibility, the protection of Constitutional Rights, national security, economic freedom, and other values are more important than that pat on the head he needs from the state.

    Comment by V the K — January 17, 2010 @ 11:00 am - January 17, 2010

  15. Before I get goosebumps, the CPAC that you speak of is predominately run by social liberals with a fiscally conservative focus. Need you really be reminded that Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingraham , Michale, Medved, Mitt Romney, et all. are all social liberals who occasionally espouse fiscally conservative ideas? You’ve made inroads with the closeted bisexuals. Congratulations. You will truly make inroads with conservatives when you cease attacking marriage and cease attempting to normalize neurotic behavior and its associated paraphilias to primary and secondary school age children.

    Comment by RJLigier — January 17, 2010 @ 11:00 am - January 17, 2010

  16. Need you really be reminded that Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingraham , Michale, Medved, Mitt Romney, et all. are all social liberals who occasionally espouse fiscally conservative ideas?

    Where can I get a look at the social liberal-o-meter and check the ratings of the aforementioned “social liberals?”

    In fact, what are to “social liberal” ground rules? Could I have a list of the top ten top five issues on the social liberal agenda?

    Thanks.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 17, 2010 @ 12:47 pm - January 17, 2010

  17. The post which we are responding to appears to me to be nothing more than a whine and a demand for attention from the Gay mainstream. And inclusion in the Gay community.

    However, in these posts, I see the complete and total disregard for ANY legislation designed to help Gay people living under discrimination. Many of the posters in here do not care about resolving state discrimination against Gay people (and it isn’t just marriage) as they place their own conservative agenda above that of the Gay community at large. Just read your posts above.

    I’ve looked at GOProud!’s priorities.

    You have a few items that are of interest to Gays and lesbians.

    1) You claim to support domestic partner tax equity? Is there a single incumbent Republican Congressman or Senator that is willing to support this legislation? Please, names. Are there any Republicans you are willing to publically not-endorse because they oppose this?

    2) DADT Repeal. What’s your plan Dan? Name ONE Republican Senator or Congressman that supports its repeal publically (there might be one, but I think the tea partiers don’t like Anh Cao – who I supported btw). It doesn’t appear that a candidates support or opposition to DADT repeal has any impact whatsoever on the support by your community (Gaypatriot/GOProud! – and yes, the blog posts appear to be by insiders at GOProud!)

    3) Opposing the FMA. Any public non-endorsements of Republican candidates for the GOP Federal candidates that support this? I’ll condemn Harold Ford, Gene Taylor, Artur Davis (and I support a REPUBLICAN against him) and other Dems right now who voted for it. How about some consistency?

    Regardless of any merits of the issues, gun laws, the GWOT, federal funding for fundamentalist schools (aka school choice), flat taxes, abortion, fiscal policy, making Wall Street the owners of social security, and death tax repeal are not Gay rights issues. There might be fifth or sixth derivative benefits for a few Gay people, but they aren’t Gay rights issues. However, you seem to focus exclusively on these issues.

    Dan, it appears to me that your ‘support’ for repealing DADT is limited to some line on a blog post that is more than counteracted by your organizations support for candidates that are diametrically opposed to the three stated Gay rights objectives.

    Perhaps if you could provide some guidance on HOW your support of Brown helps DADT get repealed, DP tax equity gets passed, and how it fights FMA.

    Whats your plan, Dan? I don’t think you have one.

    The reason that you are ignored is that your strategy doesn’t seem to make sense to the Gay mainstream. Here’s some advice (ignore it if you’d like).

    1) Admit when Republicans are worse than other candidates on Gay rights issues. For example, address Brown’s DADT position directly. If you still support him over a supporter of DADT repeal, fine, but at least make sure you let people know that you at least recognize reality.

    2) Actually grow a pair and condemn some elected Republicans when they engage in anti-Gay policies and politics. Trying to attack Democrats for not doing something while ignoring similar behavior is ridiculous and makes you not credible.

    3) Try and highlight the three gay rights issues you support and look to support candidates on those issues first, rather than last.

    4) Stop attacking Democrats for not supporting things that YOU DON’T SUPPORT (such as Gay marriage). Its hypocritical.

    The Democrats are failing my community. There is a space for movement. But you guys represent a failed opportunity as you don’t stand for anything that the Gay mainstream is furious with the Democrats on.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — January 17, 2010 @ 6:09 pm - January 17, 2010

  18. Tom, if you don’t think I have a plan, you haven’t read my posts.

    And if you define this post as a whine, then you define the entire gay marriage movement as an ever more plaintive whine than this. All I do is make point about the prejudices of the left-leaning gay groups and activists against conservative–and their failure to acknowledge the progress being made (in terms of attitudes toward gays) on the right.

    That they are so blind to this shows a certain prejudice. I just don’t see how it’s whining to point out an observation I have made.

    Indeed, your very response shows some of that same prejudice. Instead of addressing the conclusion reached over, in an angry tone, with all guns blazing, you fire off a series of attacks on me and pose questions which have nothing to do with the post to which you have attached them.

    If there is a reason gay groups refuse to acknowledge the increasing tolerance of conservatives toward gays, then please provide it–for that would be the appropriate means to take issue with my point.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — January 17, 2010 @ 6:18 pm - January 17, 2010

  19. Regardless of any merits of the issues, gun laws, the GWOT, federal funding for fundamentalist schools (aka school choice), flat taxes, abortion, fiscal policy, making Wall Street the owners of social security, and death tax repeal are not Gay rights issues.

    Guess what?

    According to Lazy of Tombrook and his Obama Party, abortion is a gay-rights issue, pandering to unions is a gay-rights issue, and socialized medicine is a gay-rights issue.

    So remember that, when Lazy of Tombrook screams “anti-Gay”, what he’s really saying is that these people don’t support the leftist agenda that he and his Obama party do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 17, 2010 @ 8:09 pm - January 17, 2010

  20. And I think heliotrope perhaps nailed it best of all:

    Please, please, please step forward and tell us the details of how nobody knows the trouble you’ve seen and nobody knows your sorrow in your wretched life.

    We could have a pity party and bake a cake and offer all sorts of reassurance and send you home with a doggy bag full of eclairs and candy kisses. Catharsis, man, is the stuff true drama is made of. A whiner without catharsis is like a septic tank that won’t drain.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 17, 2010 @ 8:12 pm - January 17, 2010

  21. Dan,

    What is your “elect Republicans” plan for DADT repeal?

    We might be talking past each other because you apparently are from New England and I’m from the Deep South/Texas. There are actually one or two Gay supportive Republicans in New England (The GOP Governor in Conn., for example – Brown doesn’t appear to be one). In the Deep South and Texas, there isn’t a single elected Republican that isn’t 100% anti-Gay. We need the intervention of the Federal Government as we aren’t willing to move or wait 100 years for remedies that can only come from the government (transnational family reunification, passing ENDA, non-discrimination in federal funding, adoption rights, etc.). These are real issues that affect real people.

    Now it is true that I have probably sunk (almost) to the level of V the K and or NDT and have also used them as part of your movement. For that, I probably should apologize. Those two do not appear to care one whit for any Gay person other than themselves.

    Remember, that the United States is not just liberal Mass and Vermont and California.

    Its also Alabama, and Mississippi, and Georgia.

    Just because you personally don’t experience discrimination, doesn’t mean that others don’t.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — January 17, 2010 @ 8:21 pm - January 17, 2010

  22. NDT,

    When I scream anti-Gay, I’m talking about the Republican Party in Collin County, Texas (where you’re from, right?) where last year the county government fired a Gay person simply for being Gay. He was fired after he ran as an openly Gay republican for an elected office.

    You are a real piece of work.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — January 17, 2010 @ 8:26 pm - January 17, 2010

  23. And NDT, I’m not a member of the NGLTF or HRC. I think HRC is ineffective and the NGLTF thinks its 1962. I voted for Obama and I vote for Republicans when the Democrat is worse. I’m furious with Obama, but like most Gays, I regret my vote for Obama over Clinton much more than my vote for Obama over McCain. In 2012 I’m willing to vote for a third party. But the Republicans, not unless they are better than the Dems on Gay rights issues (and Guns aren’t a Gay rights issue).

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — January 17, 2010 @ 8:30 pm - January 17, 2010

  24. And you know what, Tom? In Obama Party-dominated Minnesota, the city of Minneapolis demoted and punished its fire chief, for, as she told it, “homophobia and sexism”.

    Please denounce that for us and show your intellectual consistency by stating that there is never any reason for firing or disciplining a “Gay” person other than discrimination. That’s what you believe, right?

    And I particularly loved this remark:

    Just because you personally don’t experience discrimination, doesn’t mean that others don’t.

    Classic example of a moocher.

    “Moochers” demand others’ earnings on behalf of the needy and those unable to earn themselves, however, they curse the producers who make that help possible and are jealous and resentful of the talented on whom they depend. They are ultimately as destructive as the looters— destroying the productive through guilt, and appealing to “moral right” while enabling the “lawful” looting performed by governments.

    The fact that V, Dan, and I don’t experience discrimination despite running in very conservative circles is a problem for you, Lazy, because it ruins your theory that everyone is out to get you. So instead of acknowledging that your theory is wrong and that discrimination is not as endemic as you need it to be, you scream that we are evil and awful people for not being discriminated against.

    You see, Lazy, you NEED discrimination. It’s a convenient, handy excuse for your failures. Lost your job? Discrimination, not the fact that you were a rotten performer? Lower-paid? Discrimination, not the fact that you decided to party instead of going to class.

    Why should V, Dan, and I feel guilty about not being discriminated against? What good does that do anyone, not the least of which us? All it does is make us hate the very people who are our friends simply because they don’t support YOUR need for government-based validation and expect you to earn it instead — like they did and we did.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 17, 2010 @ 8:54 pm - January 17, 2010

  25. Don’t suppose it’s ever occurred to liberal crybabies that maybe some of us are capable of believing that anti-gay discrimination is bad, but giving the Government power to dictate to people who they have to employ, rent to, and associate with is worse.

    After all, I can always find another job. But where do I go to get my freedom back?

    Comment by V the K — January 17, 2010 @ 11:19 pm - January 17, 2010

  26. V the K

    Why don’t you object to employment non-discrimination laws that cover Baptists and Mormons. They ARE protected from non-discrimination. If non-discrimination laws are so much a threat to your freedom, then why don’t conservatives advocate the removal of employment non-discrimination policies that cover religious belief?

    Why do all the Republicans down here support bills banning employers from firing workers for bringing firearms on the private property of the employer?

    You might have an argument if the only group excluded from non-discrimination policies in the Conservative world is Gays.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — January 17, 2010 @ 11:36 pm - January 17, 2010

  27. heliotrope @ 13:

    Lazy of Tombrook is merely saying that the amorphous “gay agenda” rules supreme over all other considerations and if you do not agree you are an Uncle Sellout.

    This nails Tom’s attitude squarely on the head.

    And thanks, heliotrope, for the excellent name for Tom. I think I’ll call him “Lazy of Tombrook” from now on.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — January 18, 2010 @ 12:23 am - January 18, 2010

  28. RJLigier @ 15:

    the CPAC that you speak of is predominately run by social liberals with a fiscally conservative focus. … You’ve made inroads with the closeted bisexuals. Congratulations. You will truly make inroads with conservatives when you cease attacking marriage and cease attempting to normalize neurotic behavior and its associated paraphilias to primary and secondary school age children.

    May I suggest, RJ, with all seriousness, that you consult a mental health professional ASAP.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — January 18, 2010 @ 12:27 am - January 18, 2010

  29. Ah, Lazy in Tombrook, you have returned!

    I must say your newer posts are no more impressive than your first.

    It is interesting you say that Dan’s post “appears to … be nothing more than a whine and a demand for attention from the Gay mainstream.” It is interesting because your posts are nothing more than whines that all American homosexuals don’t share your political priorities.

    If, like V the K, a gay American thinks that government interfering with an employer’s freedom of association is worse than anti-gay discrimination by employers, he won’t support measure like ENDA. But of course than makes him an Uncle Sellout (as heliotrope so nicely put it), doesn’t it?

    If a gay American believes in the rights of unborn children, he probably views abortion as a more urgent matter than DADT or immigration by gay couples. But then he’s just plain evil, isn’t he?

    If a gay American wants the government to uphold the Second Amendment (gun laws), stop using tax laws for social engineering (flat taxes), stop spending and borrowing the country in penury (fiscal policy), and defend the nation from attack by those who wish to destroy it (the Great War on Terror), and places those issues at a higher priority than same-sex partner benefits, well he’s just a short-sighted loon!
    As you said, such matters can only lead to “fifth or sixth derivative benefits for a few Gay people.”

    Fifth or sixth derivative benefits for a few Gay people! WTF!

    Just what the hell is a fifth or sixth derivative benefit? And who does abiding by the Constitution’s guarantees of liberty, exercising sound fiscal judgment, and defending us all from murdering terrorist help only a few gay people?!

    I’m beginning to think we should start calling you Brain Dead in Lazybrook.

    You know, Tom, at #5 I asked you

    Why the hell shouldn’t the GOProud folks or anyone else put political principles above the interests of their “community” based on ethnicity, sexuality, religious belief, or whatever else?

    You have no answer, do you?

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — January 18, 2010 @ 1:05 am - January 18, 2010

  30. Why don’t you object to employment non-discrimination laws that cover Baptists and Mormons. They ARE protected from non-discrimination. If non-discrimination laws are so much a threat to your freedom, then why don’t conservatives advocate the removal of employment non-discrimination policies that cover religious belief?

    Again with the laziness.

    V the K is not responsible for the mental lapses and hypocritical attitudes of others. Not even for those who call themselves conservatives.

    Now if you would answer the question which I’ve put to you twice.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — January 18, 2010 @ 1:12 am - January 18, 2010

  31. Why don’t you object to employment non-discrimination laws that cover Baptists and Mormons.

    What makes you think I don’t?

    Comment by V the K — January 18, 2010 @ 10:22 am - January 18, 2010

  32. Simply put, the LGBT Left is more interested in what divides us as Americans rather than the- far more numerous- issues and concerns that unite us. It comes down to their world view of people as primarily members of one interest group or another rather than as people as individuals.

    Just my .02…

    Comment by Kellie — January 18, 2010 @ 3:09 pm - January 18, 2010

  33. V the K,

    You might object, to employment non-discrimination policies (even those that cover Baptists). But, there isn’t one single elected Republican that does.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — January 18, 2010 @ 7:41 pm - January 18, 2010

  34. You opined

    Why the hell shouldn’t the GOProud folks or anyone else put political principles above the interests of their “community” based on ethnicity, sexuality, religious belief, or whatever else?

    Political principals are fine, if they are principles enforced consistency.

    Now if GOProud!/Gaypatriot wishes to argue that Gay issues are tertiary to supporting conservatives that vote against Gay rights, then that is your right. Fine, but don’t whine that the Gay mainstream ignores you and treats you with the same contempt that you treat them.

    Here’s a piece of advice. Stop trying to take credit for the Gay gains that you did little (if anything) to bring about. Stop attacking Dems for not passing things (like marriage equality) that you don’t support. Stop whining about the Gay mainstream ignoring you. Stop trying to pass off Republican agenda items as Gay supportive when any benefit is coincidental (third derivative) and only impacts a few Gay people. Stop trying to argue that you oppose DADT if you constantly push people who oppose it over people who want it repealed.

    I, like the majority of the Gay mainstream, am not a supporter of HRC or NGLTF. I have voted for and supported non-Democrats when there was actually choice. And I actually care about stopping my government discriminating against me or others, simply because I am Gay.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — January 18, 2010 @ 7:53 pm - January 18, 2010

  35. You might object, to employment non-discrimination policies (even those that cover Baptists). But, there isn’t one single elected Republican that does.

    So what? 1. I’m not a Republican. 2. I consider a broad range of policies in determining which politicians I will support. It’s you who’s obsessed with a narrow range of special interest positions.

    Comment by V the K — January 18, 2010 @ 10:00 pm - January 18, 2010

  36. I think gun rights are a gay issue. I am gay, and if someone is gonna attack me because I’m gay, then I get to use my God-given 2nd amendment right to protect myself and family.

    I think the economy is a gay issue. If I don’t have money left over after taxes, I can’t support myself or my family…or give money to gay organizations.

    Comment by Valerie — February 1, 2010 @ 4:06 pm - February 1, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.