It is, in large measure, because of George W. Bush that I started blogging. While I had been so incensed by his decision to back the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) in February 2004 that I wrote in Rudy Giuliani in the California primary and had, in March of that year, considered voting Libertarian in the fall election, I came around while following John Kerry’s campaign.
That Democrat seemed more interested in playing to Democratic critics of W and posturing for the media than in addressing the real security threats to our nation.
And while Bush had an imperfect record on domestic issues and intervened in an issue — amending the federal constitution — from which that charter excludes the executive, he did demonstrate a clear recognition of the need to take an aggressive stance against the enemies of the United States. By the summer of 2004, I was back to supporting his reelection.
It would seem that most gay Republicans would understand that, while disappointed with his stance on the FMA, the nation faced more pressing challenges. And John Kerry was clearly not up to those challenges. With so much at stake, Log Cabin could at least have been more diplomatic in the manner of its non-endorsement. But, they did it in a manner clearly designed to hurt George W. Bush and, with recent revelations about their funding made manifest in recent months confirming suspicion we then had, in a manner intended to help John Kerry. Not a very responsible thing for a Republican organization to do in time of war.
Thus, when I read Bruce’s post telling Log Cabin to stick it, I eagerly e-mailed him thanking him for speaking up — and later accepted his invitation to join this then-fledgling blog.
I say all this as prelude to a passage which particularly struck me in the former president’s memoir. When he asked Dick Cheney to serve as his running mate, that great and good man told the then-governor of Texas that his daughter was gay. “I could tell,” Bush wrote
. . . what he meant by the way he said it. Dick clearly loved his daughter. I felt he was gauging my tolerance. “If you have a problem with this, I’m not your man,” he was essentially saying.
I smiled at him and said, “Dick, take your time. Please talk to Lynne. And I could not care less about Mary’s orientation.
While we all may remain disappointed about the former president’s stand on FMA, we continue to accumulate evidence that popular notions of his supposed bigotry in the gay community notwithstanding, George W. Bush does not hate gay people.
It would be nice if folks in the gay community acknowledged W’s reaction to his running mate’s openness about his daughter’s sexuality — and to that vice president’s sterling record on gay issues.
If I were you, sir, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Good advice, Eric. 🙂
As I have said for a long time, President George W Bush is truly a class act!
Now, compare the conversation between Bush and Cheney with John Kerry bringing up Mary Cheney’s orientation for exploitation purposes in one of his debates with Bush.
Look what Cindi McCain is saying. . .
Must we?
I think it’s great that former VP Cheney is accepting of his daughter. But still, he has a lesbian daughter, not a gay son. Those two are not the same thing.
Are there any prominent conservative Republicans with gay sons or brothers who are accepting of their sexuality? I’m not asking to be cynical — I really want to know.
Society is more tolerant of lesbians & female homosexuality, than they are of gay men & male homosexuality. Of course, most straight men (including conservative straight men) find the thought of 2 attractive girls getting it on, to be highly arousing.
But then when it comes to gay men, then suddenly the only verse of the Bible people can think about comes from Leviticus, and then they blurt out comments like “Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve!”, and “the anus is an exit only, not an entry!” (apparently, only if you’re a guy — if you’re a girl, then having anal intercourse is totally acceptable)….
Are you able to provide any empirical evidence to support this assertion, or are we just expected to remain convinced you’re an ideological tool?
“Society is more tolerant of lesbians & female homosexuality, than they are of gay men & male homosexuality. Of course, most straight men (including conservative straight men) find the thought of 2 attractive girls getting it on, to be highly arousing.”
Huh?!?!?!?
You have obviously been reading more propaganda from Division 44 of the APA.
“The ‘Ultimate male fantasy’ of girl on girl, loses a lot of its attraction when your mom is gay.” – me.
@ The_Livewire — So what if your mom is gay? One of my (straight male) friends also has a gay mom, and he talks about how “hot” it is when two “cute” girls (closer to his age) make out.
@RJLigier — I have no clue what “Division 44” is. But I do know what the APA is. It’s that horrible organization that removed homosexuality as a mental disorder, right?
@Eric Olsen — I don’t know what kind of “empirical evidence” you want — if I provide some research or academic material, you & RJLigier wouldn’t believe it anyway. Or I could just tell you about the men’s graphic T-shirts that I saw yesterday in a mainstream clothing store at the Promenade in liberal Santa Monica that said, “I support gay marriage only if the 2 girls are hot.” Ever wonder why no mainstream clothing company produces a men’s t-shirt that says, “I support gay marriage only if the 2 guys are hot”?
Btw, nobody responded to my original question in my earlier post either.
Meh, I was never worried about it and all the pissing & moaning was a waste of time and energy.
BTW, your original question is based on your own ASSumption that Cheney only accepts his daughter because, somehow, you believe that lesbians are hot. What the hell difference does it make if there’s a “prominent conservative Republican” with gay sons or brothers? It doesn’t change the fact that he loves and accepts his daughter.
You want it to be conditional, but it doesn’t seem like Cheney’s going to oblige.
Also recall, James, that “prominent Conservative Republicans” didn’t give a crap when Mehlman came out. It was the tolerant™ liberal left that went apeshit spicey gonzo and expressed their hatred and bigotry.
You are correct that there are bigger issues out there. But what impresses me about this site and gay conservatives is the patience rather than the ME attitude many gay and lesbians have. I have to have the state recognize MY relationship. Bullies only go after US. You, the straights HAVE to accept us as WE are. The fact is that as more people are open and honest, without the hysterics, people are coming around about their relationships with gay and lesbian people. I know that myself. I think W is and will remain a class act. And he showed it in not dumping Cheney from the ticket when so many wanted him to.
Remember the discussion of Dan Savage’s It Gets Better photo op? Read this: http://colorfulconservative.blogspot.com/2010/11/dan-savage-classy-as-always.html
Dan Savage wasted no time going back to sniper mode after the elections. The pretense of caring about youth was a charade. I hate to say I told you so. But I told you so. How sad.
Coco,
Well, “sad” is a relative term. What I find to be really “sad” are gay men who marry women as a cover, and then say, “just because you’re a faggot doesn’t mean you’re gay, you should just try harder to like women……” Guess what….I have no desire to be sexually intimate with a woman — I enjoy being sexually intimate & having relationships with men. 🙂 I don’t need your approval.
If Dan can be openly conservative in democrat West Hollywood, then I can be openly gay in republican Orange County. Sure, I’ve overheard several of my neighbors call me a “fag” & “homo” before, but at least I’m living my life honestly & authentically.
Consider this question for a moment: Is it true?
1) Is it true that you’re homosexual? And/or,
2) Would it also be true that you’ve adopted a moral/ideological viewpoint which is distinct from theirs? Perhaps even in opposition to theirs? Not something they should necessarily admire?
Even if I don’t like people’s language, I tend to think they should be forgiven for noticing reality. (If that’s what they are doing.)
Oh and finally,
3) Are you annoying? (“Fag” is becoming used in our society just for someone who’s annoying.)
James, the APA removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders only because gay activists pressured the organization to do so. The removal was a totally political, not medical or scientific, decision.
you mean this Seane-Anna
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php
If you like that my dear. . .you like Scott Lively also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Lively
See You Next Tuesday my dear. . .
I think, a person being gay or lesbian should not be our gauge of what an individual can or cannot do. Or even if a person supports gays or lesbians, it should not matter at all. What’s important is that the person can do something good not just for a few but for many. In other words, there should be no discrimination with regards to a person’s sexuality.
I didn’t agree with Bush on spending but I damn well agreed with him on protecting America. When elections come, I would hope in the future people are paying attention to whom has our best interests at heart as a whole as opposed to the American Idol President which is how Democrats run all the time. They intend to be all things to all people and then do NOTHING for them.
That is a great way to distill my own feelings.
I don’t have any reason to believe he could care less about Mary’s orientation because by his administration’s track record the only thing gay they concerned themselves about was how to use gay panic at the polls. Bush regularly threatened to push for a federal amendment banning gay marriage seemingly right during re-election season, but there’s no other action on behalf of gay rights he advocated. In 2004 he even said he was unclear if being gay was a choice or not.
Why the love-fest now when at the end of his tenure you were all ready to impeach him for not being real, rootin-tootin gunslinging brush clearing conservative.
That’s funny, because when John Kerry bragged about how he had the “same position” as Bush, gays and lesbians praised that as being “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, and said nothing about “gay panic”.
If anything, the only group trying to use “gay panic” was the filthy Obama Party, who were trying to push the meme everywhere about Mary Cheney being a lesbian because they believed that would drive voters away from Republicans.
And meanwhile, Countervail, no one seriously believes that gays and lesbians like you care anything about Mary Cheney, given your penchant for wishing death on her and her family.
Lannie Davis–a Democrat and friend of Bill Clinton’s–once told a story about George W. Bush when they were both at Yale.
A group of guys were standing around talking when a gay man walked past them. Someone in the group made a snide remark, and George Bush defended the gay man saying something to the effect that one couldn’t judge another man unless he had walked in their shoes.
Bush is a good man.
Here’s a novel concept, Countervail and North Dallas Thirty! BOTH of you are CORRECT! It turns out the Bush and Obama people were equally cynical in how they leveraged the gay issue as we found out once each were in office for a couple years!
The only part I disagree with is ND30 using the word “only” because Obama definitely had the example of Rat Turd Rove to go by when deciding how to manipulate the “gullible gays”. While Kerry was cynical in the debate in bringing up Cheney’s family, I don’t see what’s wrong with asking Cheney to square his support for his daughter with the aggressively hateful stance taken by members of his party (Alan Keyes et. al.). At the same time, knee-jerk reactions to Mary Cheney and Ken Mehlman are not constructive for those hoping to garner support for same-sex marriage or unions and gays in the military.
Partisans of both parties are guilty of keeping blinders on to the flaws of their own party to the detriment of many.
James askes in #7:
I dunno, but Ron Reagan says his decades of marriage to the same Buddhist woman is proof he is not. He is happy in his atheism and enjoys their three cats (they have no human children) and he calls himself an independent. Meanwhile, many gays see him just as James mentions in #16:
So, James, I think Ron Reagan is queer (odd). Do you think he is queer (odd) or do you think he is a “homo” and a “faggot”?
Whatever the case may be, we must leave it up to you. You are defining the issues here.