Gay Groups Should Stop Acting as “Appendage” of Democrats
Reporting that the “largest gay rights group in New Jersey has just voted unanimously to stop giving contributions to all political parties (they only gave to Dem. committees)”, John Aravosis predicts:
I suspect we’ll see other state gay rights groups follow NJ’s lead, which is based on, whether intentionally or not, the Don’t Ask, Don’t Give campaign that . . . our Netroots allies, launched in November. And perhaps it’s time that national gay rights group did the same, rather than simply serving as an appendage of the Democratic party instead of serving their own community.
(Emphasis added.)
As I’ve written previously, I believe the boycott that John has spearheaded has helped spur the Administration to move forward on DADT. That said, I’m delighted to see John recognize yet again what we and other gay conservatives have been saying for many years about HRC and their allied groups. They act more like the gay auxiliaries of the Democratic Party than independent groups advocating for gay rights.
To be sure, while we offer similar criticisms, we would likely seek different solutions. We agree on repealing DADT, but part company on other issues. All that said, I admire anyone who stands for their principles without engaging in name-calling and misrepresentation (or any other form of mean-spirited attack). From all that I have read on this issue, John, the folks at Queerty and Pam Spaulding have focused on their opposition to Democratic Party inaction on issues of concern to them.
So, kudos to them for standing tall for their beliefs. And special thanks to John for giving me a great title for a post.
(H/t: Instapundit.)
19 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hear, hear!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 9, 2010 @ 12:02 pm - February 9, 2010
I suspect the main difference why I want the repeal of DADT and the reason that the Gay Left wants the repeal of DADT boils down to this: I think that serving our country is an honorable tradition and I admire our men and women who risk their lives to protect our freedom. The Gay Left thinks America is a patriarchal, oppressive, imperialist regime that is the cause of the world’s evils–but it’s easier to know who to hit on if gays can serve openly.
Comment by Ashpenaz — February 9, 2010 @ 12:37 pm - February 9, 2010
“I admire anyone who stands for their principles without engaging in name-calling and misrepresentation”
guess there are not too many people around here that you admire, eh?
Comment by Tano — February 9, 2010 @ 12:54 pm - February 9, 2010
Well Tano, not you certainly.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 9, 2010 @ 1:08 pm - February 9, 2010
#3
Ass.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 9, 2010 @ 5:06 pm - February 9, 2010
It’s about time. Most successful movements push for candidates of all political stripes that are favorable to their issues, not by latching on to a particular party. The reason is obvious: the issues become attached to a particular party, which brands them in partisanship thereby potentially losing support of a large percentage of the electorate and of course they suffer from the normal political game as well rise and fall with the fortunes of that party. Take DADT for example. What the hell does DADT repeal have to do with abortion? Higher taxes? Healthcare? Global warming? ANWR and to drill or not to drill for oil? Etc. Not a damned thing. Liberal gay activists took the easy way out by latching on to the DNC years ago and though they’ve made some strides, they are also suffering for it. So is everyone else.
Comment by John — February 9, 2010 @ 6:47 pm - February 9, 2010
Yes, Dan – I agree that the Democratic party has taken the gay vote for granted for too long, and I agree that being gay should not necessarily mean that one is liberal or leftward leaning… the question is, does GayPatriot stand for independent gays, or is it an appendage of the Republican Party?
Comment by Phil Holmes — February 9, 2010 @ 9:12 pm - February 9, 2010
Phil Holmes in #7 asks:
Fair enough. It is clear that liberal gays are an appendage of the Democrats. However, the TEA party supporters are mainly Republicans, independents and more than a few Democrats who have decided that politics as usual needs to be taken to the woodshed.
So, I would suggest that a GayPatriot is most likely not a Democrat. However, I do not see why that means the GayPatriot is then forced to take a seat among the independents or Republicans. However, there is a possible misunderstanding on my part when one speaks of an “independent gay.” Is that a gay who is not on the liberal gay reservation? Someone who does not lead with the “gay agenda?” A gay who is outside the “gay community” or isn’t “gay enough?”
Perhaps, just perhaps, a GayPatriot is an American who is gay rather than a Gay who happens to be american.
Comment by heliotrope — February 9, 2010 @ 9:49 pm - February 9, 2010
Actually, I am a conservative Democrat, like Evan Bayh, Jim Webb, Ben Nelson, and Hillary Clinton. I am angry that my party has been hijacked by the far left–much as many Republicans feel upset that their party has been hijacked by the far right.
Comment by Ashpenaz — February 9, 2010 @ 10:20 pm - February 9, 2010
Ashpenaz,
The “conservative” Democrats you have cited would be well to the left of Olympia Snow. I can respect Evan Bayh. Jim Webb is pure opportunist and about as predictable as your average sidewinder. Ben Nelson is a whore. Hillary Clinton has yet to decide if there is any principle worth holding up to the winds of change if there may be something more useful in wavering or doing a full 180.
There was a day when the Democrat party had honest brokers for alternative views. That day passed when Pat Moynihan died.
The Republicans have not been hijacked by the far-right. That is code for religious zealots and knuckle-draggers. You are welcome to join the Republican party, but I suspect your agenda may depend on circumventing the popular will by order of the stacked court.
Comment by heliotrope — February 9, 2010 @ 10:51 pm - February 9, 2010
When did Hillary Clinton become conservative???
Was it before or after Hillarycare?
And helio please check out this site:
http://www.wnd.com/
Gawd!
Comment by gillie — February 9, 2010 @ 11:14 pm - February 9, 2010
‘When did Hillary Clinton become conservative???”
Hey, there is no accounting for Ash!
It is hilarious though, given that Hillary herself and her campaign pitched themselves as the true liberals in the primary races, viewing Obama as the centrist sell-out…
Comment by Tano — February 9, 2010 @ 11:31 pm - February 9, 2010
10: Too funny. as if a majority conservative court isn’t doing exactly that now? Essentially extending the political rights of corporations to give money isn’t exactly in the best interest of the people.
Remember the movie “The Truman Show”? It was based on what people thought, at the time, was a ludicrous premise: that a corporation could adopt a baby. I wonder how far we are from that now. While reasonable members of both parties have worked to limit the reach non-human entities, less than reasonable entities continue to work to strengthen their power.
Comment by Kevin — February 10, 2010 @ 12:28 am - February 10, 2010
Yes it has, every bit as much as the Democrat Party was taken over by leftist nutjobs. Does this mean every single Republican and Democrat fits this description? No. I don’t even believe this means a majority of the rank-and-file of either. Yet special interest groups on both sides hold tightly onto the reigns of power and though their grip is knocked loose sometimes that doesn’t last very long. Perhaps things like the TEA party movement will help change that, I cannot say. Yet since I have libertarian-minded family members as part of the movement it gives me hope.
Comment by John — February 10, 2010 @ 2:20 am - February 10, 2010
Again, constitutional freedoms for terrorists and not American companies. Not funny at all, but pretty damn sad and pathetic.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 10, 2010 @ 2:28 am - February 10, 2010
Further, The Truman Show is closer to how Statist want to control the lives of Americans and the false reality they produce. Like the bullshit the left sells that they had nothing to do with tanking the economy and it was Republican’s fault for not regulating Fan/Fred.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 10, 2010 @ 2:34 am - February 10, 2010
gillie,
Good catch on the link. Thanks.
Comment by heliotrope — February 10, 2010 @ 8:19 am - February 10, 2010
As this article states, Hillary voters are “Jacksonian” conservatives:
http://hillbuzz.org/2010/02/09/jacksonian-democrats-are-reagan-democrats-are-hillary-democrats-are-palin-democrats/
I don’t see a single shred of evidence that Hillary is a liberal. All of her policies are mainstream. Her healthcare plan was not an overthrow of our economy, but a plan which helped our current system reach out to more people, which would have profited everyone. The fact that many of you hate her for what are probably “internalized sexism” reasons doesn’t make what you believe true, any more than it makes what Palin haters believe true.
I admire both Hillary and Palin.
Comment by Ashpenaz — February 10, 2010 @ 2:07 pm - February 10, 2010
It is hilarious though, given that Hillary herself and her campaign pitched themselves as the true liberals in the primary races, viewing Obama as the centrist sell-out…
Seriously, does Tano ever tell the truth about anything?
Hillary’s aides point to Obama’s extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with “left-wing” intellectuals in Chicago’s Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants’ rights as subjects for examination.
Along the same lines, ABC reported that Clinton aides gave the network various examples, of Obama’s controversial stands. The aides cited Obama’s past assertion that he would support ending mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes, pointing to a 2004 statement at an NAACP-sponsored debate: “Mandatory minimums take too much discretion away from judges.”
Tano tried this lie a few weeks ago, and of course ran away when the facts came out. But then again, as aptly put earlier this week, what else would we expect?
It is a liberal lickspittle for re-spewing the talking points generated from the elitist copy machines at MoveOn.org and the DNC. The Powers-That-Be, one might say. It is just a goose-stepping foot soldier. One can only feel sympathy for such a creature. I’m sure there are many others like itin Michigan and across the USA.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 10, 2010 @ 5:54 pm - February 10, 2010