Gay Patriot Header Image

Memo to GOP: Ignore the Gays

During the course of the 2010 campaign, I was working on a blog post/op-ed with the title I use for this post.  But, as I followed the messages of Republican candidates across the country, I realized that, well, they had already gotten the message.  It didn’t seem necessary.  And since it wasn’t a winning issue in the campaign, it shouldn’t be a defining agenda when the 112th Congress convenes in January.

Thanks in part to the unpopular, big-government initiatives of the Obama Democrats and the concomitant (given popular opinion) growth of the Tea Parties, most Republicans campaigned on fiscal issues.  Those who made an issue of gays (or appeared to do as much) didn’t do as well on Election Day as polls forecast.

Now, our good friends at GOProud “and some Tea Party leaders” are pressing Republicans to stay true to their campaign rhetoric and “to keep social issues off” the agenda:

“On behalf of limited-government conservatives everywhere, we write to urge you and your colleagues in Washington to put forward a legislative agenda in the next Congress that reflects the principles of the Tea Party movement,” they write to presumptive House Speaker John Boehner and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell in an advance copy provided to POLITICO. “This election was not a mandate for the Republican Party, nor was it a mandate to act on any social issue.”

When Chris Barron of GOProud contacted Bruce and me about the project, each of us eagerly signed on.  His letter is exactly in the spirit of the ideas this blog has been promoting for six year — and that I have been promoting for at last fifteen.  Social conservative Tea Party folk are also signing up:

“When they were out in the Boston Harbor, they weren’t arguing about who was gay or who was having an abortion,” said Ralph King, a letter signatory who is a Tea Party Patriots national leadership council member, as well as an Ohio co-coordinator.

King said he signed onto the letter because GOProud seemed to be genuine in pushing for fiscal conservatism and limited government.

“Am I going to be the best man at a same sex-marriage wedding? That’s not something I necessarily believe in,” said King. “I look at myself as pretty socially conservative. But that’s not what we push through the Tea Party Patriots.”

Nice to see a gay conservative group actually working within the framework of conservative groups to keep the focus on the issues which have defined our party at least since the rise of Reagan — and have helped Republicans win elections in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994 and now 2010.

Even the Advocate has picked up on this.  Guess the message is that a gay Republicans can get media attention without attacking their own party.

Share

140 Comments

  1. Man this is really sad…

    It is nice however to see you guys finally admit that the GOP/Moral Majority/and much of the republican part just flat out hate you.

    Sadly, begging won’t work, they can’t wait legislate against you.

    Comment by Dooms — November 15, 2010 @ 1:16 pm - November 15, 2010

  2. Allow me to clarify. If it is truly your goal to spark change from within, you are going about ti all wrong. Begging and pleading with these people is only going to make them come after you even harder.

    Comment by Dooms — November 15, 2010 @ 1:23 pm - November 15, 2010

  3. More twaddle from Dooms, how nice.

    Try addressing the point of the post, rather than projecting your own self loathing onto others.

    The TEA parties are focused on socio-economic issues. Even some so-cons (like myself) welcome the focus on this and on possible societal change through legislative means.

    If Prop 8 is any indication, poor Dooms must hate to realize that the majority of democrats in CA “part just flat out hate you.” since he feels that Prop 8 was ‘leglislating against him’.

    Good on GOProud on meeting with those who might disagree, as opposed to those who just dump bile and hate.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 15, 2010 @ 1:41 pm - November 15, 2010

  4. Dooms – when someone on the right disagrees with my position on same-sex marriage, I don’t see hate. I see disagreement.

    But if disagreement means hate then I feel much more hate from the left than I do from the right. The left hates me because I’m white; because I am self-supporing; because I “won life’s lottery” (meaning that I used what intelligence I was born with to educate myself and learn a useful skill). The left hates me because I’m politically conservative; that I have a right to defend myself; that free speech means what it says; and, most of all, because I think western culture (Judeo-Christian roots and all) is far superior to other cultures.

    So in the left-right conflict, I feel much more at home on the right.

    PS: laugh of the day… Fred Phelps and crew shows up in McAlester, OK (home of right-wing bitter clingers) to protest at a soldier’s funeral. Some very naughty person slashed two of the tires on their van (the naughty person was wrong… but his heart is in the right place). They couldn’t find anyone in town to fix their tires.

    http://michellemalkin.com/2010/11/15/auto-repair-shops/

    Comment by SoCalRobert — November 15, 2010 @ 1:49 pm - November 15, 2010

  5. Yes, the 2010 elections (both here in Maine and nationally) bore witness to the fact that focusing energy on pocketbook issues (and not the bedroom) is a winning recipe. With California, the most populous state, teetering towards bankruptcy (and state elections there just greased the cables), and the US deficit spiraling ever upward; I’m certain that the average Joe and Jane aren’t too concerned right now about SSM. They have bigger fish to fry. I’m just waiting for Seane-Anna to come screaming in here on this thread right on cue.

    Comment by Jim Michaud — November 15, 2010 @ 1:56 pm - November 15, 2010

  6. SoCalRobert, the differnce is when someone on the hate “disagrees” with you it’s often followed by anti gay remarks.

    They claim gays are abominations akin to murderers, child molesters, and thieves. They claim that gays will be the downfall of America. I think you are forgetting that many blacks (the demographic claimed to have been pivotal in the vote) are very religious and while they vote democrat it’s mostly because republicans vote against things like education and access to help for college bound students.

    Let us not forget that black culture in America has a very “pro-acceptable gender identity role” mentality and views gays as “not men”.

    No one hates you because you are white, but it’s interesting you deny being hated on the right for being gay.

    Comment by Dooms — November 15, 2010 @ 1:59 pm - November 15, 2010

  7. Interesting. I must say that quote at the bottom really shows why gay conservatives are important to the overall gay rights movement. While I don’t always see eye to eye with the views expressed on this site, Democrats have proven that they can’t be trusted as the only party to help gays.

    But, while a step in the right direction, calling for a hands off attitude with regards to gays isn’t enough. We will eventually need legislators from both sides of the aisle to advocate on our behalf if DADT is going to be repealed and other legislation beneficial to the LGBT community is going to succeed.

    Comment by AJ — November 15, 2010 @ 2:01 pm - November 15, 2010

  8. In the first sentence I ment “Right” not “hate” :)

    Comment by Dooms — November 15, 2010 @ 2:02 pm - November 15, 2010

  9. typically you should put your stipulations on people before you give them your money. I’m not sure which world you live in but all the teabaggers in oklahoma ran on a strong “Family values” platform that included opposing gay rights specifically. I also remember the two governors saying that they should stick to financials only to be shouted down by Huckabee, and other various luminaries of the GOP ticket. Nor do I hear Rand Paul ignoring social issues. I understand your intent and all but this is why I found it difficult to support the Republicans at all this year as I feared giving any more power to the social wing of the tea party movement. After all Cristine O’donnel was widely cheered for down playing the separation of church and state in my family and they all agreed with her. I hope you get lucky but I doubt you’ll get any support from the republicans for not turning on the gays when they need a handy scapegoat.

    Comment by Tim — November 15, 2010 @ 2:02 pm - November 15, 2010

  10. @SoCalRobert if you want to see people hate on you for being gay go over to Hotair and spend some time on the threads. I get accused of being a pedophile by people supporting a church that actively condoned pedophilia for the last two generations. As humorous as the irony is they are very vocal in their hatred of gays though some try to downplay it as a psychological problem that could be cured if we just prayed enough. It’s nice that some republicans are polite to you to your face but Look at Maggie Gallagher her message changes dramatically when she feels comfortable enough to start tossing the religion back into her speeches.

    Comment by Tim — November 15, 2010 @ 2:07 pm - November 15, 2010

  11. Let’s hope that the GOP holds-off the soc con issues and doesn’t repeat the mistake of Tom Delay et al in taking the GOP so far astray that the voters couldn’t even recognize the Party of Lincoln. English only, flag burning, abortion, rap music, gays, I-legals or Teri Schiavo aren’t fertile grounds for political GOP activism.

    We need to stay off the soc con issues no matter how hard the farRight faithful foam in their frenzies of fanatical fulminations. Gore was wrong; the end of the world is not upon us. So too were the soc cons, America is not Rome circa 70 AD.

    We got better dogs to hunt this time.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 15, 2010 @ 2:15 pm - November 15, 2010

  12. well, goproud’s letter has been clearly well-received:

    http://www.redstate.com/aarongardner/2010/11/15/a-note-to-goproud-and-other-libertarian-tea-partiers/

    keep up the great work, goproud! i’m sure sen. demint et al. are going to change their minds about gays any day now.

    Comment by Chad — November 15, 2010 @ 2:26 pm - November 15, 2010

  13. Well, Tim, you’ve shown your commitment to civil discourse by using a sexual slur to describe the most dynamic & diverse grassroots political movement in America. By your this acknowledged prejudice, we can pretty much discount anything you have to say on this topic.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 15, 2010 @ 2:37 pm - November 15, 2010

  14. Actually, I was going to stay silent, but I do have to point out that the folks at Hot Air might have reason to think of Tim as a pedophile.

    I also have to wonder about this using Hot Air commenters as an ‘example’ of how the right thinks. So can I use the Black Panthers as an example of how the Democrats think? Or look at La Raza’s motto of “For The Race, Everything” as an example of how Dooms thinks?

    I mean we can now safely assume, using the Dooms Standard that he breaks laws with impunity and is racist, like the career politicians at the DoJ?

    I get on NDT about the ‘broad brush’ approach, but hey, if you want to play that game, there’s plenty of paint to go ’round.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 15, 2010 @ 2:50 pm - November 15, 2010

  15. Uh…are you just going to ignore that Ann Coulter is very fond of using the word “F***ot” on national television?

    Lets not forget all the anti gay groups and politicians you guys SUPPORT.

    Comment by Dooms — November 15, 2010 @ 2:50 pm - November 15, 2010

  16. #10: I never said that the right did not have its share of loons and haters (by the way – venture over to DailyKos or democraticunderground for a sampling of lefty hate and craziness).

    The Tea PARTY folks are right: if we don’t get our finances in order and return to a government that works for us and not the other way round (to paraphrase Reagan) the other stuff will become academic. As the GOProud letter states, the election wasn’t a Republican mandate. The message to the GOP is “you have another chance – don’t screw it up like you did the last time”.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — November 15, 2010 @ 2:50 pm - November 15, 2010

  17. B Daniel Blatt wow though I’m impressed that your actually monitoring your comment sections (happily) I find it amusing that a play on their own name that doesn’t have to considered a sexual slur so draws your ire. Perhaps if you were less fixated on the rest of the message you would have heard my argument why I disagree with your stance. Nor did you dispute my point so I’m going to take it that you couldn’t and this entire article is mere spin for your group. I applaud you for the spin and GOProud masterful media work but rewriting history is a tricky thing especially when it is directly contrary to what is going on.

    Comment by Tim — November 15, 2010 @ 2:51 pm - November 15, 2010

  18. also Daniel my parents are staunch Tea partiers and I can assure the tenor of the emails they forward to me are shriller than ever about the state of the nation and it’s moral decay. I have seen zero evidence that the religious branch of the movement will not dominate it just as throughly they have the GOP proper.

    Comment by Tim — November 15, 2010 @ 2:53 pm - November 15, 2010

  19. Tim, I actually didn’t read your comment. When I check our dashboard, the first two lines of the 5 most recent comments show up, so I did see the sexual slur you used. I have blogged previously on how I can’t take seriously anyone who uses such a slur; it shows that folks like you aren’t interested in discourse, but in smearing a movement or just playing childish games.

    All that said, as per your last short comment, you have presented zero evidence whatsoever to show that the religious branch of the movement dominates the Tea Party movement nor that it has dominated the GOP, a talking point of left-wing blogs and the MSM, but an inaccurate representation of the Tea Party movement or the Republican Party.

    If the GOP were so dominated by social conservatives, how come their agenda is not defined by them. It’s just that the MSM prefer to highlight those rare occasions when they do push such legislation, but ignore it when they promote other bills.

    You’re not here to engage us, but to attack us — as the tone of your comments clearly shows. This post encourages the GOP to focus on fiscal issues. And you provide no evidence whatsoever that it won’t.

    So, you see, Tim, there’s nothing for me to dispute. (Yes, after reading your short comment, I did, having a bit of time on my hands, go back and read your initial commentary. Lots of innuendo. Zero evidence.)

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 15, 2010 @ 3:05 pm - November 15, 2010

  20. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2010/October/Study-Tea-Party-Christian-Conservatives-Have-Strong-Ties/

    Still wondering why you haven’t addressed Coulter’s use of the slur.

    Comment by Dooms — November 15, 2010 @ 3:10 pm - November 15, 2010

  21. Interesting, Dooms, how you treat Pat Robertson’s organization as a credible source. I recall a previous thread where you took at face value something from Pat Buchanan’s web-page.

    You find these guys credible? I sure don’t.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 15, 2010 @ 3:13 pm - November 15, 2010

  22. dan, if you’re so convinced that the gop won’t legislate social issues, then why did you and goproud write the letter in the first place? the letter itself seems to be the very evidence that you claim tim needs to provide.

    Comment by Chad — November 15, 2010 @ 3:16 pm - November 15, 2010

  23. I don’t but I know it’s the only thing you would actually take the time to look at. Though now that I have your full attention http://www.publicreligion.org/

    And you have still failed to address Ann Coulter’s use of the slur.

    Comment by Dooms — November 15, 2010 @ 3:18 pm - November 15, 2010

  24. fair point, Chad.

    I signed onto the letter because I fear some social conservatives (e.g., Jim DeMint) might use the GOP victories as a pretext to do so as much. Wanted to remind them what this election was about. Because some social conservatives do back the Tea Party movement, there are some politicians eager to act on their agenda. I would remind them, as I pointed out in the post that some social conservative Tea Party candidates, namely Ken Buck and Sharron Angle, may well have lost because of voter perception of their stands on gay issues.

    (Actually, Dooms, I just glanced at it. I clicked on the url, saw that it was Pat Robertson’s site, then realized I didn’t need read it so I wrote out my comment. Fascinating that you would assume I would read his stuff. I wouldn’t have gone to the site at all if not for your link. Each time, you type, you reveal more and more of your prejudice.)

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 15, 2010 @ 3:19 pm - November 15, 2010

  25. Whoops! Left out the link http://www.publicreligion.org/research/published/?id=386

    Comment by Dooms — November 15, 2010 @ 3:19 pm - November 15, 2010

  26. so maybe you should apologizing for being so dismissive and condescending to tim…

    Comment by Chad — November 15, 2010 @ 3:21 pm - November 15, 2010

  27. So all the lobbying for the repeal of DADT and DOMA are proof that the Democrats don’t plan to repeal them? Thank you for ceeding that point chad.

    Now I can see the letter serving a valuable purpose. There are social conservatives who will misread the election. Just as San Fran Nan and President Obama misread 2008. Letters like these are to remind those so-cons to fix the problems plauging the nation, instead of going to social engineering.

    As to Doom’s ‘why haven’t you addressed X’ whine. I notice Dooms hasn’t been able to find in the Constitution where he has the right to have his social contract recognized by the government. Maybe he should comment on that.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 15, 2010 @ 3:22 pm - November 15, 2010

  28. Don’t change the subject live wire, if you are going to take offense to the term, take offense when it’s used by people who headline you’re “Homocon” event.

    Comment by Dooms — November 15, 2010 @ 3:27 pm - November 15, 2010

  29. Dooms, your comment is rich, given that in your very first comment, you changed the subject, alleging (incorrectly) that I had admitted “that the GOP/Moral Majority/and much of the republican part just flat out hate you.”

    Then, you say (without providing any evidence) that the GOP can’t wait to legislate against us.

    Yeah, there are a few who would like to, but none among the GOP leadership in either House. And we just want to make sure that those handful of social conservatives who do want to legislate are aware of the message voters sent in the recent elections.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 15, 2010 @ 3:34 pm - November 15, 2010

  30. So Dooms has to admit that, by his own terms, the Democrats ‘flat out hate him’ based on the SSM votes in CA and elsewhere. Rather than face that, he accuses me of changing the subject.

    Dan, I actually approve of the letter. It’s good to remind the people we elect (in the words of Red Leader) to ‘Stay on target, stay on target.’

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 15, 2010 @ 3:37 pm - November 15, 2010

  31. Answer me this, how many of those GOP/Republican politicians have supported a repeal of DADT or DOMA? How many are for ENDA and things like the Matthew Shepard act?

    Last time I asked these questions no one had anything to say about them.

    And you have once again failed to address Ann Coulter’s use of the slur.

    Comment by Dooms — November 15, 2010 @ 3:37 pm - November 15, 2010

  32. As always your rose colored glasses show your party in a favorable light that I don’t see. Like I said your article is spin, trying to create a situation that isn’t real. Had McCain not filibustered DADT or 2 other republicans supported it’s repeal thinks could have moved forward.
    Considering that you offered no proof that Teaparty members didn’t support the social conservatives and that 80% of them are already registered as republicans. I find it hard to believe that those are just the financial conservatives. Like I said my parents are staunch tea party member, they forward me all their emails and they are all about moral decay and how gays and abortion are the most important issue.
    I say all this because just yesterday my friends and I were discussing the exact same topic and reached the opposite conclusion. Mayhaps it is because we reside in oklahoma and ever reasonable candidate and every extremist candidate won. Or the fact that DADT is most likely going to be stripped and buried from the defense bill and most if that happens we have only the slim chance of a legal victory sometime in the next few years. That and your compromise of not discussing social issues will mean that DOMA and immigration reform for gays will languish. Somehow the status quo doesn’t seem that great.

    Comment by Tim — November 15, 2010 @ 3:39 pm - November 15, 2010

  33. Poor Dooms, still can’t answer questions posted to him. Try staying on topic. You might do better that way.

    Besides Dooms, by your standard of looping everyone together, then surely you’re going to condemn the Democrats for the President’s stance on DADT and DOMA….

    I won’t hold my breath.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 15, 2010 @ 3:39 pm - November 15, 2010

  34. Livewire, does the left have groups like NOM? Are they out and about calling gays immoral evil heathens that will bring about the rapture? Are people on the left using the church as it’s own personal army to combat the “evil gays”?

    No? Didn’t think so, I can disagree with someone who votes against my rights, but when you start spreading lies, misinformation, and using your book of fairy tales to tell others how to live their lives, we have a problem.

    Comment by Dooms — November 15, 2010 @ 3:40 pm - November 15, 2010

  35. Tim, fair points, on DADT repeal and immigration reform.

    Two quick responses:

    (1) Why didn’t Dems move forward on them when they had majority?

    (2) What has HRC done to change Republican minds on these issues.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 15, 2010 @ 3:43 pm - November 15, 2010

  36. One HRC is a branch of the democratic fund raising machine and is not a grassroots organization. I have long denounced the HRC for it’s false promises and outright lies as have many democrats, nor do I give them money. Why your comparing them to the tea party I’m not sure.

    Two the Dem’s did move forward with DADT and it stalled in the senate on a republican filibuster. As for immigration it was the republicans under Bush who sank the last effort to fix the many issues we face. McCain again if I remember correctly.
    If your trying to make the case that everyone has blame that’s fine but don’t tell me with a straight face that things will get better under republican control when the last time Bush himself was personally responsible for fanning the flames of the anti-gay movement and helping to channel millions of dollars to their coffers. I may not blame him for many things but that particular betrayal has never sat well. Specially after I had just defended him to my aunt and reminded her that he had stood up for gays in 2000 during the election.

    Comment by Tim — November 15, 2010 @ 3:53 pm - November 15, 2010

  37. La Raza, Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, NAMBLA, Code Pink, SDS, Weather Underground… Need I go on?

    Try again Dooms

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 15, 2010 @ 4:24 pm - November 15, 2010

  38. This is an interesting post, and I believe a step in the right direction. While I may night see eye to eye with many views expressed on this sight, the last quote in this post highligthed the need to have diverse voices in our movement. Democrats have proven to not be substantial enough of an ally to fight for LGBT rights.

    I only question if call for a hands off approach is enough. If Republicans ignore issues like DADT, as opposed to supporting its repeal, LGBT rights will stagnate for the foreseeable future and we will be no better off than we were trusting Obama to get results when it comes to LGBT issues. But if John Mccain’s recent reaction to the leaked study on DADT is any indication, Republican’s are not going to budge anytime soon.

    Comment by AJ — November 15, 2010 @ 4:26 pm - November 15, 2010

  39. Granted their hands off approach might have to do more with the fact they had Obama and a bad economy to run against. They had issues to win on and didn’t need to beat the drum to drive out social conservatives to win this election. It will be more interesting in 2012, if the economy is recovering and Obama isn’t as toxic, if they will exploit those issues to try to win.

    Comment by darkeyedresolve — November 15, 2010 @ 4:52 pm - November 15, 2010

  40. In the almost ten years I’ve been following this blog, many, many liberals have come and gone. They arrive, “full of sound and fury,” signifying little, except the absolute certainty that somehow, the Democrat Party alone cares for them and seeks to protect them from harm, and is fighting to guarantee every one absolute equality.

    Invariably, these sad little souls grow weary of being told that not everyone in this country feels as if they’re being treated differently because of who they prefer to have sex with, and they move on suddenly, never to be heard from again.

    But lately, especially after the ascension of the Mocha Messiah, I find myself even more puzzled by these unfortunate souls, given that for almost two years, their cherished Democrat Party had the nation at their feet, and accomplished not one of the things the Gay Left had spent decades telling us the Democrat Party had dedicated itself to bringing to fruition.

    So this afternoon, after the Democrat Party finds itself trounced (again), we have a whole new pack of whining, angry liberals, all of whom seem completely oblivious to the fact that the very cute guy they brought home from the bar not only lied to them, he stole from their wallets, is now sleeping with anyone else he can get into bed with, and refuses to call them unless it’s an election year.

    I find it tragically funny that these misguided souls have somehow deluded themselves into believing that they’re smarter than I am.

    After all, who’s really the whore here?

    C’est la vie.. Ten years ago, I would’ve spent hours debating these people, sure in the righteousness of my conviction that just as I don’t make it a habit of sleeping with men who promise me things, I don’t vote for politicians who assume that their party affiliation confers upon them my support, based upon with whom I sleep.

    And for whoever it is that keeps screeching about Coulter using the word “faggot,” might I remind him that that “icon” of All Things Gay, Dan Savage, spent the better part of his early career not only referring to himself thusly, but insisting that anyone writing to him do the same.

    Take that for what it’s worth – I’m frankly sick of having to listen to liberal whores.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — November 15, 2010 @ 4:55 pm - November 15, 2010

  41. Livewire how exactly are ANY of those left wing groups? (Minus code pink).

    I mean , Nation of Islam? The New Black Panthers? NAMBLA?! Are you for real?

    The “New Black Panthers” is stationed solely in Philadelphia and is made up of like 10 guys, I don’t even think they vote. NAMBLA is a disgusting group that want’s to legalize pedophilia. The Nation of Islam (if I am thinking of the same group you are) is no where near left wing, they protest in Philadelphia preaching how they hate pretty much everyone.

    The rest of those are either inactive or extremely fringe (either).

    Try again.

    Comment by Dooms — November 15, 2010 @ 5:06 pm - November 15, 2010

  42. [...] More on this, from  the folks over at Gay Patriot.  [...]

    Pingback by Gay conservative group GOProud and several Tea Party leaders call on the GOP to ignore social issues « Wild Irish Rose — November 15, 2010 @ 5:07 pm - November 15, 2010

  43. For the geographically challenged Dooms Philadelphia is not in Texas

    NAMBLA, so fringe that its membership is praised by the safe schools czar, when he’s not marching with Nancy Pelosi

    The Weathermen, inactive? not so much. Also check who was funding the blockade runners.

    Dooms, so long on bile, so short on facts.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 15, 2010 @ 5:19 pm - November 15, 2010

  44. Okay, here’s the consistency/credibility test:

    (1) Will Dan, Bruce and GOProud go on record saying that congress must NOT overturn DADT no matter what the conclusions of the military report say? And that congress must not for any reason overturn DOMA?

    (2) Will Dan, Bruce and GOProud fight to get congress to drop the issues should they take them up?

    (3)If the answer to any of the above is “no”, or anything short of a definite, unqualified “yes”, how can you claim to have any credibility whatsoever on the matter?

    (If history is any indication, Dan will now conveniently stop replying to comments in this thread.)

    Comment by American Elephant — November 15, 2010 @ 5:32 pm - November 15, 2010

  45. AE’s right. In order to truly call a cease-fire on social issues, then these issues ought not be raised on either side. What’s the likelihood of that happening?

    I say we (conservatives) should all stick the issues of redefining marriage and allowing abortion in their proper venue: state legislatures. That’d be the best National Conservative cease-fire.

    P.S. Dan, I made a comment earlier using the f***** word. The link explains the reason why, it’s not just gratuitous. Please release it!

    Comment by Brendan in Philly — November 15, 2010 @ 5:48 pm - November 15, 2010

  46. ::ahem::
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKVwrHQXXaY

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYFijV9pOsE

    Comment by Dooms — November 15, 2010 @ 5:48 pm - November 15, 2010

  47. That’s the issue I see, AE, tho I feel we have issues with it for different reasons. How GOProud can advocate for the repeal of DADT, blame Democrats for not getting it done and then call for a hands off approach from Republicans makes no sense. If GOProud wanted to repeal DADT, then this letter is not addressing that. It’s simply calling for Republicans not to harm the LGBT community with socially conservative legislation. This letter shows me that not only is there a lack of faith in Republicans to help advance LGBT causes, but there may be a fear that they could actively work against them as they have done in the past. I’m hoping for a positive response from hi ranking Republicans, but I’m not extremely optimistic about what the results will be.

    Comment by AJ — November 15, 2010 @ 5:53 pm - November 15, 2010

  48. Why is Ann Coulter calling someone a f** a big deal/surprise. This is much more concerning:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOU9q-4Su0c&feature=player_embedded

    Politicians using gay issues to prove how conservative they are to the tea partiers in Arizona to win re-election is much more troubling than some “political commentator” trying to sell books by spewing hateful words disguised as jokes.

    Comment by AJ — November 15, 2010 @ 5:59 pm - November 15, 2010

  49. AJ, speaking here as a lifelong Arizonan, I must say that if you mean John McCain, you should say “John McCain” instead of “politicians” — which falsely makes it sound as if there are hundreds of politicians here in Arizona doing this.

    John McCain has no credibility with the tea partiers in Arizona. I know, because I personally know many of them and am quite familiar with the situation here. They are well aware that he will say anything, and pander to just about anybody, if he thinks it will get him somewhere.

    It it “troubles” you that he does this, you may take heart. We’re not that stupid.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 15, 2010 @ 6:11 pm - November 15, 2010

  50. Are you really Progressives or Anarcho-Capitalists aka Libertarians? I do not perceive any sense of federalism or restoration of the Constitution of the United States. Daniel,…… Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, et al are anarcho-capitalists like yourself. Neither is socially conservative.

    Comment by RJLigier — November 15, 2010 @ 6:16 pm - November 15, 2010

  51. Those who made an issue of gays (or appeared to do as much) didn’t do as well on Election Day as polls forecast.

    I notice you link to yourself quoting a reader as a reference for that claim.

    However, the Politico saw things exactly the opposite. They confirmed that those candidates followed Dan’s advice to the “tea” and didn’t run on social issues:

    Buck told the Denver Post this week that social issues were a key reason for his defeat, explaining: “It was part of their effort to focus more on their version of Ken Buck rather than the issues that I thought most voters were concerned about. I don’t know that there’s any way to avoid it; I wasn’t going to derail my message to have an election decided on abortion, or any social issue, for that matter.”

    A similar campaign unfolded in Nevada, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pummeled Republican challenger Sharron Angle for opposing abortion in all cases — and in particular, for telling an interviewer who asked about abortion in the case of a rape that some women were able to turn “what was really a lemon situation into lemonade.” Reid won women voters by 11 percentage points and nearly tied Angle among men, losing by just 2 points…

    In California, Planned Parenthood sent out a mailer comparing Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, charging that both “want to make criminals out of women who have abortions and the doctors who perform them” and branding both GOP women “too extreme for California.”

    These candidates all avoided social issues EXACTLY as you advocated, and they lost because of it.

    NOT because a majority of Americans disagree with them, indeed, polls clearly show that a majority of Americans are more in line with Republican positions on social issues from abortion to gay marriage, but because it allowed Democrats the opportunity to dishonestly define them, and motivate their base based on lies, demagoguery and complete and utter bogeymen.

    By avoiding the issue, these Republicans LOST the opportunity to either win over or at least get Hispanic, Black and other voters to not vote against them because polls show those groups are passionately opposed to abortion, LOST the opportunity to correct Democrats lies and demonizations, and LOST the opportunity to motivate that large segment of their own base that, polls prove, even in this economy, think social issues are more important than economic issues.

    ALL of which could have made the difference in these races.

    But instead, they followed your advice and CEDED winning, majority issues to the losing, minority side.

    One of the first rules of politics is to run on issues where you have majority support, and ignore or play down issues which you dont.

    Your, excuse me, naive, political advice was to put all their eggs in one basket, and they followed it, and lost. More proof that you dont understand the necessity of coalitions to achieve political victory. These losses are just a preview of the Republican bloodbath to come if Republicans are misguided enough to follow your advice when the economy is doing better.

    Another on of the first rules is to define or be defined. You advocated these candidates let themselves be defined on an issue they are closer to the majority on, and they did exactly that, and lost.

    And you have the gall to claim that LOSING by following your strategy somehow proves that you were right? That’s Obamaesque or at the very least Frumpian audacity.

    The truth is that you either don’t get why the Reagan coalition is still essential to winning elections, or you I am sorry to say this, foolishly, reject the Reagan coalition. The truth is that the Reagan coalition is still every bit as essential to winning as ever, and this election proves why. Because if you dont define yourself, and dont run on winning positions, then Democrats will define you, and will defeat you on issues in which a majority of voters are closer to your position.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 15, 2010 @ 6:19 pm - November 15, 2010

  52. Sorry, I wasn’t trying to make it sound like it was hundreds or thousands of politicians doing it and I wasn’t trying to specifically call out Arizona, my mistake. I was just using one example of a race in which a Politician pandered to the social conservatives in order to win re-election. Sadly McCain is not the only example, just the most recent, and prominent one.

    Good to hear that many of your friends don’t take him seriously. He, like many other politicians, dems and repubs, have only stood for one principle as of late, their own job security. Unfortunately, not enough people saw through his act since he was still has a job. Not that any of the candidates were all that great.

    Comment by AJ — November 15, 2010 @ 6:20 pm - November 15, 2010

  53. And by the way, the idea that you INVOKE Reagan while simultaneously REJECTING the Reagan coalition is the most audacious thing of all. Indeed, it goes beyond audacious into the realm of self-servingly offensive.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 15, 2010 @ 6:38 pm - November 15, 2010

  54. Actually moderates are closer in line with the American Public on the issues, not conservatives. As much as social conservatives like to push their success with Gay Marriage bans, they always fail when it comes to abortion. There is no support for an all out ban on abortion because most people don’t think in terms of strict ideology. Even in red states, Abortion bans fail again and again.

    As much as American Elephant wants to believe that social conservatism will help Republicans win minorities, it hasn’t over the past 30 years. Republicans have been embracing social conservatism for a long time and they haven’t made any inroads into African American community and only minimal gains into the Hispanic community. The fact is these groups vote more based on economic and social welfare than on gay marriage or abortion. Yes they vote against gay marriage and abortion when they are brought up but when it comes to candidates and party, they are much more aligned with the Democratic Party.

    Prop 8 did nothing to help Republicans in California in 2008, it passed but Obama won impressively. I wouldn’t be surprised if that abortion ban in Colorado motivated enough liberal and pro choice voters to come out and push Bennett over the line.

    Comment by darkeyedresolve — November 15, 2010 @ 6:58 pm - November 15, 2010

  55. “Okay, here’s the consistency/credibility test:

    (1) Will Dan, Bruce and GOProud go on record saying that congress must NOT overturn DADT no matter what the conclusions of the military report say? And that congress must not for any reason overturn DOMA?

    (2) Will Dan, Bruce and GOProud fight to get congress to drop the issues should they take them up?

    (3)If the answer to any of the above is “no”, or anything short of a definite, unqualified “yes”, how can you claim to have any credibility whatsoever on the matter?

    (If history is any indication, Dan will now conveniently stop replying to comments in this thread.)

    Comment by American Elephant”

    Very well put, AE. And yes, Dan will now conveniently stop replying to comments in this thread, at least the ones that pinpoint his hypocrisy and Texas size double standard.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — November 15, 2010 @ 7:03 pm - November 15, 2010

  56. “Okay, here’s the consistency/credibility test:

    (1) Will Dan, Bruce and GOProud go on record saying that congress must NOT overturn DADT no matter what the conclusions of the military report say? And that congress must not for any reason overturn DOMA?

    (2) Will Dan, Bruce and GOProud fight to get congress to drop the issues should they take them up?

    (3)If the answer to any of the above is “no”, or anything short of a definite, unqualified “yes”, how can you claim to have any credibility whatsoever on the matter?

    (If history is any indication, Dan will now conveniently stop replying to comments in this thread.)

    Comment by American Elephant”

    Very well put, AE. And yes, Dan will now conveniently stop replying to comments in this thread, at least the ones that pinpoint his hypocrisy and Texas size double standard.

    And that is why the MAJORITY of gay people do not buy Dan and GOProud’s peddling.

    It is obvious that the Tea Party has sadly been taken over by the Moral Majority and 1) spending WILL continue to rise 2) they WILL go on the attack on gay people as scapegoats when they fail to fix the economy.

    So Dan, Seane (the true voice of the GOP) has caught you in your HYPOCRISY. We all know that the GOP will be 100% devoted on social issues, and GOProud will do nothing about it as they promised NOT to get involved.

    So Dan and his self loathing friends at GOProud have shot themselves in the foot.

    Thanks Seane for helping shed light (even though I throughly disagree with your positions) on how the GOP really is and proving how gay republicans are truly delusional as their counterparts in the left (both economic and social issues).

    Comment by JS — November 15, 2010 @ 7:56 pm - November 15, 2010

  57. Just to toss this in, once DOMA and DADT are resolved, there will be no reason AT ALL for gays to be Democrats. Those are important issues, and it’s true that Democrats tend to be more supportive of gays (though that’s not entirely the case), but those are the ONLY issues where gays MIGHT want to be Democrats. Other than those 2 issues, what else is there that is so specifically gay that gays could only belong to one party?

    Republicans need to look forward to the day when gay marriage and military service are no longer issues. Then, they’ll need to find a way to attract a minority which prides itself on selfishness and superficiality–I sense a wave of leather and sparkles headed the Republican way. And if they nominate Palin, can it be long before “You go, Girlfriend!” becomes the new GOP rallying cry?

    Comment by Ashpenaz — November 15, 2010 @ 8:09 pm - November 15, 2010

  58. JS, I didn’t write anything on this thread but just quoted American Elephant. So if anyone on this particular thread “outed” B. Daniel’s and GOProud’s hypocrisy it was American Elephant. You should give the credit to whom it’s due instead of using my quoting of AE as a launch pad to condemn Republicans.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — November 15, 2010 @ 8:12 pm - November 15, 2010

  59. “In order to truly call a cease-fire on social issues, then these issues ought not be raised on either side. ” Exactly right, Brendan, but this isn’t about calling a cease-fire. B. Daniel and his band of gay “conservatives” are social liberals who despise social conservatives and are determined to defeat them in the culture war.

    Advising Republicans to ignore social issues isn’t about principle but about strategy. Getting Republicans to keep silent on social issues leaves that arena open to domination by the social Left. B. Daniel and his ilk have no intention of being silent on social issues, as they advise Republicans to be. Rather, they will use Republicans’ retreat to push for socially liberal action in the social arena.

    Actually, I don’t begrudge B. Daniel and his friends from fighting for what they believe in. The culture war is just that, a WAR, and the social Left will accept nothing short of total victory. I admire their tenacity and wish it was matched on the social Right. What upsets me is their hypocrisy and blatant lying about their actions and goals. As a social conservative I’m not stupid, regardless of what social liberals think. If gays are telling Republicans to stand down on social issues when they have NO intention of doing so themselves, that’s hypocrisy and I will call it out.

    And JS, I DID write this!

    Comment by Seane-Anna — November 15, 2010 @ 8:20 pm - November 15, 2010

  60. Awww, isn’t that cute. Now that Dooms was proven wrong again about left leaning groups (and basic geography) he goes back to his Ann Coulter thing.

    For the record, I don’t think Coulter should have called Edwards a stick of wood. After all, we know Edwards isn’t comfortable around those kinds of people.

    Now for Dooms’ next trick, he’ll endorse the party that is fighting for DADT and believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 15, 2010 @ 8:27 pm - November 15, 2010

  61. Tim in #36, it wasn’t a Republican filibuster which defeated DADT, but Harry Reid’s fumbling of the issue. Had he reached out to Maine Republican Susan Collins earlier and worked with her on developing a means to move DADT through the Senate, then it likely would have been repealed by now.

    AE, in #44, if the military report reaches a conclusion different from other reports & shows that gay people serving openly would compromise military effectiveness or unit cohesion, then I would certainly be open to changing my mind.

    But, then me say, I’d have to see the report first. Other reports have suggested that gay people serving openly would have no effect whatsoever on unit cohesion. If the coming report reaches a different conclusion, then I’d have to read the report and see how it reached its conclusion.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 15, 2010 @ 9:00 pm - November 15, 2010

  62. Dan, well and honestly answered.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 15, 2010 @ 9:15 pm - November 15, 2010

  63. Blaming the failed DADT repeal on Harry Reid is ridiculous. Yes, he may have been one of the reasons it didn’t pass, but across the board Republican opposition was another, more substantial reason. If Mccain would stay true to his word, or a few Republicans would break rank with their party and try and get things done that the American people believe in, it might have been repealed already.

    Looking away from one’s own party and solely blaming the other on this issue is disingenuous and a serious problem with the current political discourse in this country.

    Comment by AJ — November 15, 2010 @ 9:37 pm - November 15, 2010

  64. I generally agree, Daniel, Republicans should not focus on the social issues.

    Comment by Tom the Redhunter — November 15, 2010 @ 9:48 pm - November 15, 2010

  65. JS, you have provided no evidence to make your point, one compromised by the use of the self-loathing slur. If GOProud is self-loathing, please provide the evidence based of what its representatives have said — not with how left-wing blogs have spun those words.

    Um, AJ, hardly ridiculous. He’s the Majority Leader, the manner in which he pushed repeal upset the leading Republican advocate of repeal (Susan Collins). So, why didn’t he reach out to her to develop a bi-partisan approach? You can blame Republicans until you’re blue in the face, but they’re the minority in the Senate. He had a filibuster-proof majority for six months–why didn’t he move repeal then?

    Hardly ridiculous to blame the man who sets the Senate’s agenda.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 15, 2010 @ 9:51 pm - November 15, 2010

  66. And JS, I DID write this!

    LOL… And who else could have?

    Comment by JS — November 15, 2010 @ 9:54 pm - November 15, 2010

  67. Actually, I don’t begrudge B. Daniel and his friends from fighting for what they believe in. The culture war is just that, a WAR,

    I know huh, picking a WAR on your own citizens.

    So Lincolnisk of you.

    Oh yeah, Lincoln was after all Republican.

    Comment by JS — November 15, 2010 @ 9:56 pm - November 15, 2010

  68. JS, you have provided no evidence to make your point, one compromised by the use of the self-loathing slur. If GOProud is self-loathing, please provide the evidence based of what its representatives have said — not with how left-wing blogs have spun those words.

    Sure why not, lets go through this one more time:

    “On behalf of limited-government conservatives everywhere, we write to urge you and your colleagues in Washington to put forward a legislative agenda in the next Congress that reflects the principles of the Tea Party movement,” they write to presumptive House Speaker John Boehner and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell in an advance copy provided to POLITICO. “This election was not a mandate for the Republican Party, nor was it a mandate to act on any social issue.”

    You and GOProud jump around as if this is a sign that the GOP will not take on social issues. The fact that YOU bring this up not knowing what it actually says, jumping around like a little kid with a new tricycle, reeks of self-loathing. And it appears as such, because it is totally contradictory to where you supposedly stand on these issues. You either do want congress to take these issues up (repealing DADT, eg) or as you now seem to subscribe to this new “approach” in not dealing with it all. If that is what you want fine, but then you need to drop “Gay” from “Gaypatriot” since of course under a conservative rule, gays cannot be “patriotic” in the sense of fighting for their country.

    This is the characteristic of somebody that is self-loathing. The left is the same way when they peddled Obama and his ilk, thinking that they were a step ahead of everybody else.

    Comment by JS — November 15, 2010 @ 10:14 pm - November 15, 2010

  69. JS, I’m laughing so loud I may be disturbing my neighbors. I’m trying to figure out what you mean.

    I’m trying to figure out where the self-loathing is in looking the election returns, in elections Republicans won by campaigning against the Democrats’ big-government agenda and reminding the Republican leaders as much.

    You do try to twist things so you can convince yourself we’re self-loathing, but where is the evidence that we think our sexuality is a bad thing — that we’re ashamed of . . .

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 15, 2010 @ 10:18 pm - November 15, 2010

  70. Both parties put politics ahead of LGBT rights with this issue. The reason they didn’t vote on the bill when they had the super majority is because they didn’t have the political capital to do so and still get health care through. Democrats felt that healthcare reform was more important to the country than DADT.

    McCain and the Republicans he convinced to side with him said they didn’t vote for the bill because they wanted to hear the results of the study first. The bill, however, was contingent upon the results of the study, and his recent backpedaling with regards to the leaked study shows this was more “politics as usual” on his part.

    Both parties let petty political tactics and their egos get in the way of the will of the American people. If you want to solely blame the Democrats because they are in the majority, then that’s your right, tho I respectfully disagree. If Collins had been a woman of her convictions and truly believed that Americans were being treated unjustly because of this law, then she shouldn’t have let procedure get in the way of justice. Until these games stop in Washington, on both sides, the American people are the only ones that will suffer.

    Comment by AJ — November 15, 2010 @ 10:22 pm - November 15, 2010

  71. “When they were out in the Boston Harbor, they weren’t arguing about who was gay or who was having an abortion,” said Ralph King, a letter signatory who is a Tea Party Patriots national leadership council member, as well as an Ohio co-coordinator.

    ***

    Ouch – this quote looks way off for several reasons and lacks substance.

    First, aborting “useless eaters” wasn’t a common practice back then, so, of course it wasn’t on early Euro-America’s radar.

    Second, sexuality was a major issue in early America (but the emphasis was different), and let’s not forget this was before the AIDS epidemic. Don’t they teach history in the U.S.? (Embarrassing.)

    Although, I believe in a peaceful adult’s right to live how he or she wants to (if he or she pays his way and doesn’t social engineer children), fake conservative arguments like the above don’t impress.

    To ask social conservatives to self-censor (which is what liberal Republicans and Democrats want all real Christians and Jews to do) is circular. It is leftwing moralism dressed up as “tolerance.”

    Turning to historical records, I see that many of America’s greatest leaders (including Reagan) spoke seriously on many so-called “private life” issues because they led to public consequences.

    Comment by Ben — November 15, 2010 @ 10:26 pm - November 15, 2010

  72. [...] of our readers claims it’s “ridiculous” for me to blame Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for the failure of DADT repeal. This [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Will Harry Reid Reach Out to Susan Collins to Move DADT Repeal? — November 15, 2010 @ 10:36 pm - November 15, 2010

  73. Actually moderates are closer in line with the American Public on the issues, not conservatives. As much as social conservatives like to push their success with Gay Marriage bans, they always fail when it comes to abortion. There is no support for an all out ban on abortion because most people don’t think in terms of strict ideology.

    Talk about the mother of all red herrings!

    Sorry DarkEye, your straw man argument isn’t even constitutionally possible, let alone true.

    Americans dont support conservatives on abortion because conservatives want to ban abortion? Not true, and not even constitutionally possible.

    The truth is that the conservative position is to overturn Roe v. Wade, which would NOT ban any abortion, but return the matter to the states where it belongs.

    And the truth is also that a MAJORITY of Americans agree that abortion should be more restricted than it is.

    So, nice try, but wrong.

    As much as American Elephant wants to believe that social conservatism will help Republicans win minorities, it hasn’t over the past 30 years

    The hell it hasnt.

    I am guessing that you and Dan have the same misconception here. That anyone is talking about winning over majorities of Hispanics and blacks. They aren’t. I am talking about consistently swinging the Hispanic and Black votes a few percentage points in our direction. IF Republicans can do that, CONSISTENTLY, the Democrat party as we know it is toast. Democrats know it, thats why they work so hard to keep Blacks and other minorities on the plantation.

    And as the percentages of Blacks and Hispanics in America continue to grow, and the percentage of whites in America continue to decline, it becomes INCREASINGLY important.

    George Bush did that and won twice. John McCain and Bob Dole did not.

    Dan seems to think the winning formula is to chase the decreasing white urban liberal vote instead of chasing the increasing ethnic minority vote, and I have presented about a hundred different reasons why that is a demonstrably bad idea. I’ve shown him that the exit polls dont support his position, the election results dont support his position, the demographic trends dont support his position, and I have even shown him that his own positions dont support his position — namely that he advocates for certain social policies that he claims to be ambivalent about while demanding the Republican party not run on, or address any social policies, even if it represents what a majority of Americans want.

    It is a naive understanding of the way elections are won in America that is based on demogoguery and misrepresentation of what social conservatives support as a group. It is either complete ignorance of why the Reagan coalition is necessary, denial of how it works, or a flat out rejection of the principles of the Reagan coalition to begin with.

    I dont particularly think of myself as a social conservative, although I guess I am. With the exceptions of behaviors that affect everyone, I think the government should stay out of people’s business. Rather I understand that the positions of social conservatives are the closest to libertarian, Constitutionalist principles of any faction of any party, without being as complete batshit crazy as libertarianism, and so I support them for that reason. And because I always like to support the unfairly, dishonestly maligned underdogs.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 15, 2010 @ 10:59 pm - November 15, 2010

  74. Holy crap. There’s a whole lotta crazy going on here.

    Did I miss a massive psychosis outbreak on HuffPo today or something??

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — November 15, 2010 @ 11:02 pm - November 15, 2010

  75. I say we (conservatives) should all stick the issues of redefining marriage and allowing abortion in their proper venue: state legislatures. That’d be the best National Conservative cease-fire.

    Brendan in Philly for Congress!!!

    Comment by American Elephant — November 15, 2010 @ 11:04 pm - November 15, 2010

  76. Dooms – please produce the Democrats’ gay rights accomplishments from 1955-1994, then 2007-2010.

    Whaa? You can’t?

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — November 15, 2010 @ 11:04 pm - November 15, 2010

  77. AE in 75, that’s what I’ve been saying for as long as I’ve been blogging.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 15, 2010 @ 11:18 pm - November 15, 2010

  78. AE, in #44, if the military report reaches a conclusion different from other reports & shows that gay people serving openly would compromise military effectiveness or unit cohesion, then I would certainly be open to changing my mind.

    Thank you for finally responding, I’m sorry I had to taunt you into it, but it was obviously necessary.

    And thank you for at least indirectly admitting your utter hypocrisy here. Congress should avoid social issues, UNLESS they are social issues you support, like repealing DADT which is a social issue congress SHOULD take up, unless the report shows that it would be harmful to do so, in which case you MIGHT reconsider whether they should repeal DADT, but then again, you might want them to go ahead and repeal it anyway.

    When someone shows your point to be blatantly intellectually inconsistent, your best move is not to dig in, or ignore them, but to look at your position and figure out why it is hypocritical, and change it so that it is not.

    If I may offer an alternative, I would suggest that you and GOProud stop pretending you want Congress to ignore social issues unless its true that you want Congress to ignore all social issues.

    Anything less is pure intellectual dishonesty.

    Second. If I may wager a guess, you are not altogether sure where you come down on social issues. You support the “conservative position” on some social issues while supporting the “liberal position” on others.

    I respectfully suggest you have bought into a load of liberal bullshit about what the conservative position on social issues is. While it is true there are some religious people who want to ban homosexuality, and throw women who get abortions into jail, that is not conservatism.

    The social conservative position is that the Federal Government — including the judiciary — has no business deciding these matters, that the Constitution clearly leaves them up to the states and to the people, and that the only time the judiciary should inject themselves into these matters is when someone is having their God given Constitutionally protected civil rights violated, and the only time the other branches of government should intervene is when the judiciary is violating the rights of the states and the people to define these institutions, and decide these issues for themselves. And in terms of the military and DADT the only time the policy should change is when it does not negatively impact recruitment, readiness or effectiveness.

    That’s a pretty easy position to remain consistent to. It allows you to support gay marriage if you want, it allows you to support allowing gays to serve, although it may mean a longer road for getting there. And it allows you to stop ignoring all the evidence your readers present that contradicts your assertions.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 15, 2010 @ 11:34 pm - November 15, 2010

  79. By the way, contrary to media spin, the leaks on the military report do NOT say that repealing DADT wont be harmful, all it says is that a majority of military personnel dont think its a big deal. But there are still sizeable minorities who DO think it will be a big deal. Particularly in the marines, where they continue to live together where members of other branches do not. 40% of marines said they have problems with the repeal.

    That’s a big f****n deal as Joe Biden would say.

    What we need to know now is HOW big of a deal do they think it is? How many would seek to leave the military if the change went into effect? How would it affect recruitment?

    Are more gays going to suddenly start volunteering if significant numbers of people decide to leave the military?

    Its not a popularity contest. Its not a matter of 70% > 30%. If 30% of our military personnel decided not to re-up, thats far more consequential to the military than the comparatively small number of gays who leave or get tossed out because of DADT.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 15, 2010 @ 11:46 pm - November 15, 2010

  80. Sadly, begging won’t work, they can’t wait legislate against you.

    Liberals: 2, Republicans: 0

    And let’s not forget all the nastiness from Chairman Obama’s rabid defense of DOMA and DADT via the DoJ.

    They claim gays are abominations akin to murderers, child molesters, and thieves. They claim that gays will be the downfall of America.

    Sounds more like what the democreeps have said about blacks. BTW, shall we count up the number of times they’ve legislated against blacks?

    Uh…are you just going to ignore that Ann Coulter is very fond of using the word “F***ot” on national television?

    Very fond? She said it once making a jab at the liberal left and, as usual, you liberals proved her point.

    Are you just going to ignore that Bill Richardson called a guy maricón (faggot) on national radio?

    Are you just going to ignore that Pete Stark called another congressman little fruitcake on Capitol Hill?

    Are you just going to ignore that Kathy Malloy, Helen Thomas, Chris Matthews made fun of Jindal’s Indian heritage?

    Are you just going to ignore Hillary Clinton and VP Joe Bigot making fun of Indians in general?

    Are you just going to ignore Chris Matthews making fun of Joe Leiberman’s Jewsih heritage on national TV?

    Are you just going to ignore Rev. Jackson’s “Hymietown” comment?

    Are you just going to ignore Sen. Chris Countrywide Dodd’s praise of Sen. Byrd (D,KKK): ”I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century.”

    Are you just going to ignore Lee Papa saying that black people may decide that rain won’t hurt them and head out to the polls?

    Are you just going to ignore this: http://tinyurl.com/7eaynh

    Are you just going to ignore that your beloved democreeps fought hard against the Civil Rights Act 1866
    Reconstruction Act of 1867
    Freedman Bureau Extension Act of 1866
    Enforcement Act of 1870
    Force Act of 1871
    Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
    1964 Civil Rights Act
    1965 Voting Rights Acts
    1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act

    Shall I go on, Doop, or are you going to address each?

    Civil Rights Act of 1875
    Civil Rights Act of 1957
    Civil Rights Act of 1960

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 16, 2010 @ 12:03 am - November 16, 2010

  81. AE – I cannot speak for Dan, but your gotcha tactic is too obvious.

    You are putting words in our mouths, not relying on our written record.

    I have no duty to be sucked into your childish MSNBC-like game.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — November 16, 2010 @ 12:21 am - November 16, 2010

  82. Sorry to whore my own blog, but I still haven’t figured out trackback.

    My thoughts.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 16, 2010 @ 12:24 am - November 16, 2010

  83. Bruce,

    Thanks for the name-calling.

    Which words did I put in your mouth?

    Did you not just sign onto a letter asking Republicans not to address social issues?

    Has Dan not been openly advocating that congress pass social issues, namely the repeal of DADT?

    How is asking for consistency being childish?

    How is defending social conservatives from red-herrings, not to mention erroneous arguments childish?

    How is demonstrating that the Reagan coalition is still VERY much needed in order for Republicans to win, using exit polls, election results, and demographic trends to back up my arguments childish?

    What is childish is constantly demanding that the leftists on the board address his points, and then ignoring people who do refute his points with hard facts.

    What is childish is having your argument be SHOWN to be intellectually inconsistent, indeed self-contradictory, and digging in and defending it anyway.

    I can’t remember the nature of the disagreement, but Ash several months back, demonstrated that I was blatantly, demonstrably wrong about something.

    I apologized and acknowledged my error. I didn’t dig in and try to defend myself by accusing him of playing childish MSNBC gotcha games.

    Please tell me where I have put words in your mouth, and I will apologize. And please be sure I was talking about you, and not about Dan. I dont believe I have.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 16, 2010 @ 1:23 am - November 16, 2010

  84. These guys who are worried about GOP “legislating against you” – what don’t they get about LIMITED government? The whole point of limited government is to leave room for all kinds of ways of living. Limited government protects a “hated minority” from being legislated against by a “hateful majority.” If you’re gay, the people you should be afraid of are those that want a more intrusive government.

    Comment by dbear — November 16, 2010 @ 2:05 am - November 16, 2010

  85. The reason they didn’t vote on the bill when they had the super majority is because they didn’t have the political capital to do so and still get health care through. Democrats felt that healthcare reform was more important to the country than DADT.

    No, liberals felt that sucking off the unions and taking over private industry was more important than gays. If libs and gays are really BFFs, how much political capital would it have taken?

    Given that the liberals have made it clear they don’t give a damn what the American people want, why would they let DADT stop them? They did whatever the hell they wanted on what they wanted to do.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 16, 2010 @ 2:47 am - November 16, 2010

  86. AE, I don’t see DADT repeal as a social issue. I favor repeal because every study I have read, going back to the Rand Study in 1993 has shown that open service by gay men and lesbians will not compromise military effectiveness.

    That said, should the Pentagon study contradict those studies, then I would be willing to shift my position. And even repeal advocate Colin Powell seems to support Senator McCain’s position.

    But, should the study offer the conclusion that Sens. Collins & Lieberman believe it will, would you be willing to change your mind?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 16, 2010 @ 3:26 am - November 16, 2010

  87. AE – For your information, my position on DADT (as I have written) is much closer to yours than Dan’s.

    So yes, you are putting words in my mouth.

    And since when is having a healthy discussion (on which Dan and I are not aligned) grounds for your wild-eyed rantings about us “proving our consistency”.

    I apologize for nothing because all you have done in the past 24 hours is invent positions on issues that YOU THINK Dan or I hold and accuse us with your imagination as the only evidence.

    So yes, you are acting very much like MSNBC.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — November 16, 2010 @ 4:31 am - November 16, 2010

  88. After the repeal failed in the Senate, didn’t the WH declare that we should wait to see what the DoD report said? If I’m not mistaken, that is what McCain’s position has been.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 16, 2010 @ 5:31 am - November 16, 2010

  89. AE, I don’t see DADT repeal as a social issue.

    I’m sorry, you’re right, you didn’t say to ignore social issues, you said to ignore gay issues, right in the Title of this post.

    I suppose you dont consider DADT a gay issue either? You refer to it as a gay issue all the time.

    So you are telling people who oppose “gay issues” to ignore them, while you simultaneously advocate for them.

    It’s still just as hypocritical, I just paraphrased poorly.

    That said, should the study offer the conclusion that Sens. Collins & Lieberman believe it will, would you be willing to change your mind?

    Change my mind to what? I don’t oppose the repeal of DADT, I’m fine with repealing it IF it wont hurt recruitment, readiness or effectiveness. EXCEPT, I do oppose distracting the military with this social issue in the middle of two wars. Absolutely.

    But if there is a report that shows that giving troops sensitivity training courses , and training on how to live with your new gay roommate in the middle of a war AREN’T a distraction from the mission, then sure, I would be happy to change my mind about that.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 16, 2010 @ 5:45 am - November 16, 2010

  90. My two (straight) C-bills.

    DADT isn’t a ‘social’ issue, it’s a military issue with social repercussions. i.e. will effectiveness be helped or harmed by rewriting DADT/UCMJ?

    It has already been argued that there’s a negative effect (the translators issue mentioned earlier) it’s also been argued there is a positive effect on morale.

    As to precedent, I’ll again point out that ‘gays in the military’ go clear back to Von Steuben. I also believe in a self correcting military.

    As to DOMA, let’s look at the ammendment language from 2003:
    “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups” (emphasis mine)
    shall be construed to require That’s the key. If CT or MA want to legislate marriage to be between two consenting adults, or four, or two adults and a hamster they can, but California doesn’t have to recognize that hamster, nor can their judges pull a ‘right to hamster’ out of their… hats. (you thought I was going there, didn’t you?)

    (Now, I’m not sure I like Congress dictating what a state’s constitution may be interpreted to say, but the good is not the enemy of the perfect),

    Such an ammendment limits the power of the courts, and limits the power of the Federal legislators. So for this small government conservative it’s worth getting behind it.

    DeMint was right on many levels, So-cons can’t be silent, and many constitutional issues do have social reprecussions. OTOH, arguing about DOMA when the economy is still tumbling is akin to debating changing the locks when the house is on fire.

    Conservatives should put the issues on the back burner. But if the libs do keep trying to slip their victories through. they need to stand and deliever.

    I am amused at the Democrat defense. I mean really guys, Harry Reid tacks DADT repeal on with his DREAM act and tries to stuff it in a budget request, and it’s the Republicans’ fault it died? Keep in mind we had Democrats cross the aisle to vote against it. Why aren’t you applauding the bipartisanship of the vote?

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 16, 2010 @ 7:03 am - November 16, 2010

  91. AE – For your information, my position on DADT (as I have written) is much closer to yours than Dan’s.

    I’m glad it is, if that’s the case then that means you are not being inconsistent. But Dan is not, and I am by no means the only one who sees inconsistency and hypocrisy in this letter.

    At least three other of your readers agreed, as did RedState who rightly point out, “if the Republicans and SoCons didn’t achieve a mandate then what the heck makes you [the signatories] think you did?”, and Allahpundit is utterly perplexed as to what the hell GOProud is even talking about, and zeroes right in on the same contradiction everyone else is: “Is GOProud suggesting that they not bring a bill to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” to the floor if the Pentagon review is favorable to doing so? ” with the obvious unstated answer being, of course they aren’t.

    And since when is having a healthy discussion (on which Dan and I are not aligned) grounds for your wild-eyed rantings about us “proving our consistency”.

    As I said, several of your other readers also see the inconsistency, other much bigger blogs see the inconsistency. But I’m a wild eyed childish MSNBC ranter for pointing out what others are seeing and are complimenting me for having said well, while you are engaging in healthy discussion by calling people who point out widely perceived hypocrisy names. Not sure how that works.

    I apologize for nothing because all you have done in the past 24 hours is invent positions on issues that YOU THINK Dan or I hold and accuse us with your imagination as the only evidence.

    Bruce, Look above. Look at the TITLE of the post that calls for Republicans to “Ignore the gays” and look at the letter that you signed that calls for Republicans to ignore social issues, while this blog, is consistently pushing social issues. Then look above and see that other people see the same thing. Then look at Red State and Hot Air seeing the same and similar things. Thats not my imagination, thats reality. It’s an INHERENTcontradiction.

    That’s the pitfall of belonging to a political group that defines ITSELF in terms of identity-politics. You cant both be active in a gay group called GOProud that exists because of identity politics and social issues and simultaneously tell other people not to push their social preferences. Its INHERENTLY contradictory, its INHERENTLY hypocritical.

    (The same way calling me a childish gotcha wild-eyed MSNBC ranter for seeing what other people see while claiming you are engaging in healthy discussion is inherently hypocritical.)

    But don’t worry, I didn’t ask you to apologize. I simply said what I do when I am wrong. Nobody likes being wrong, and different people handle it differently.

    And by the way, to the extent that the issue gets any attention, expect more people to notice the inherent contradiction too.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 16, 2010 @ 7:34 am - November 16, 2010

  92. AE, I just want to state that I find your arguments lodged here are appropriately pointed and I don’t get the sense that you’re putting words in anyone’s mouth or misstating the relevant aspects of DADT as mostly a social issue… nor the notion of how it plays into the toic… “Memo to GOP: Ignore the Gays”.

    I’m old enough to remember when most -not all- soc cons railed against gays in the military because they thought (as I did) that social experimentation on unit composition was a bad idea. I recall one GP commenter saying something like, “we hire troops to kill, not to make gays feel accepted”. And that brought out the old saw about gays not serving simply equals racial integration which, frankly, still don’t make sense to me.

    Not to go off-topic, but I think a group like GOProud will be best served if it stays on the course of arguing solid conservative fiscal issues and walks away from the temptations of becoming the obverse of HRC and playing identity politics from the Right.

    It’s a tough course to traverse… but the folks behind GOProud are unusually gifted souls and patriots. I’ll take those two qualities over a lot of other important traits any day as harbingers of success.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 16, 2010 @ 10:00 am - November 16, 2010

  93. I apologize for nothing because all you have done in the past 24 hours is invent positions on issues that YOU THINK Dan or I hold and accuse us with your imagination as the only evidence… Comment by Bruce

    (ILC coughs, stays otherwise tactfully silent)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 16, 2010 @ 10:03 am - November 16, 2010

  94. AE, you’ve been a total dick ever since your first comment. You came in with a hostile attitude and you’ve kept it throughout. That’s not like you at all and I have to wonder what’s got your panties in a bunch.

    I don’t know what it is that you don’t get about this. The point is that we’ve got bigger fish to fry than to get caught up in all kinds of other issues. We’ve got a ship that needs rescuing and we don’t need pissing matches over the color of the deck chairs.

    Frankly, I found the RedState piece condescending and insulting, but that’s just me.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 16, 2010 @ 10:30 am - November 16, 2010

  95. Besides a foolish consistency being the hobgobblin of little minds, I am not really sure this whole kerfluffle is about consistency at all.

    Memo to GOP: Ignore the Gays

    The GOP is under reconstruction. It is not a monolith and there is no one place to send the “memo.” The GAYS are diverse and becoming much less monolithic.

    The point, as I understand it, is well taken. We are sailing in a sea of red ink and being battered by gales of unfunded entitlements and giant waves of entitlement debt that are imperiling our ship of state.

    This is not the time to argue and divide over what the sex and color of the figurehead should be and whether its banner should be inclusive of gay marriage.

    I take this to be an argument about priorities in the storm while domestic issues are set aside.

    Of course, most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. But there is that corps of individuals who can only think of decriminalizing drugs or must have same sex marriage now or demand that trans-fats and toys in kids meals be driven from the restaurants. These issues have their points and rights on the public stage, but under the current pressures of survival, they are not very compelling.

    If we are in a triage situation, having a discussion about whether one leg is as good as two is not very productive.

    Comment by Heliotrope — November 16, 2010 @ 10:47 am - November 16, 2010

  96. I used to know a trans-fat. I think “her” name was Melissa.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 16, 2010 @ 10:51 am - November 16, 2010

  97. Helio, the “point” as I understand it is that the GOP needs to stay away from soc con issues like gay marriage, flag burning, English Only, the evils of I-legals, the intrinsic value of school prayer, 10 commandments in the courthouse and the criminalization of dope.

    The current fiscal crisis doesn’t force the GOP to stay away from those entangling and strangling soc con issues… our political saliency requires it.

    The GOP ought to stay away from soc con issues and not let the Party get high-jacked again by well-meaning but hegemonistic soc cons pushing their version of family values down everyone’s throats… just like some of those folks have battled against the push from the secular Left.

    In fact, we should dump the entire Culture War agenda as fast as we can… let the churches in our communities battle for the Christmas nativity scene at City Hall if it’s needed so badly… it isn’t the business of the GOP. Let media pundits play that card for all the ratings and controversy they can manufacture –it isn’t the business of the GOP. I hope the 2012 GOP Platform is void of those kind of vainglory exercises in chest thumping correctness.

    I want the GOP to focus on spending, getting taxes lower, natl security, winning the War on Terror and defederalizing our govt’s priorities & programs so that individual states are once again responsible for what they had been prior to say 1964. No, I don’t want black kids kept out of suburban schools or women pushed into the alleyways with a wire clothes hanger… but I want America to return to the concept of being “THESE United States” instead of “THE United States”… and that’s why Reagan’s message as a Gov, a lecturer and Prez is important to the GOP.

    And I want my frickin’ 3 gallon flush toilet back, too. To Hell with the water needs of the southwest –we’ve got the Gt Lks in our backyard.

    Just sayin’ what I thought the point was….

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 16, 2010 @ 1:51 pm - November 16, 2010

  98. So to reset back to thread topic… the Politico article is pretty good. It correctly identifies the Tea Party movement as “freewheeling” and “leaderless”. It has some choice quotes from Christopher Barron:

    “We’re not talking about pushing social conservatives out of the tea party movement. Those people aren’t only welcome but they’re a critical part of this movement.” said Barron.

    But ideas like the one Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) floated about banning gay teachers [ed.: ???] run counter to the tea party ethos, Barron argues. “How is that limited government?” he said.

    Correct. If it is true that DeMint has floated a (presumably Federal) proposal for banning gay teachers, that would be a violation of limited government, Tea Party principles.

    I like DeMint alot, for his leadership on fiscal issues. I don’t know if he’s really floated such a proposal. If he has, it would be a painful waste of time and energy. CA settled it 32 years ago in the Briggs Initiative fight, where Ronald Reagan famously helped to defeat such a proposal.

    As for DADT repeal: That will also be a waste of time, unless the military say they want it. (For example to help prevent de facto desertions by people who claim they’re gay just to get out.) Let it be a pragmatic question, guided by what the military says it wants. Put the bill forward if they want it for their own effectiveness… otherwise, not. That is the “consistent” position here.

    Long story short: My hope is that *both sides* of these social questions will hold their fire, saving it for the fiscal issues where it will be critically needed to fight the Marxists and Big Government types of either party.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 16, 2010 @ 2:29 pm - November 16, 2010

  99. Or maybe the whole “cease-fire” situation will free us all to look at morality in a new way. Which is actually the old way, because it’s the very way Christian teaching has advised all along.

    Instead of peeking in our neighbors’ windows and obsessing over what they may be doing, maybe we’ll starting “looking at the beam in our own eye,” before trying to take the splinter out of someone else’s. That’s sounder policy for everyone, gay and straight.

    We haven’t gotten very far with the other method. It’s only been used to grow government ever more gigantic, and encouraged us to use it in ever more intrusive ways. It’s “justified” using the tax code as a means of stealing from each other, making thieves of us all. It’s been used to rationalize the use of police-state violence against one another.

    None of which, of course, has anything to do with real conservatism.

    Christian teaching places an emphasis on leadership by example. We haven’t seen much of that lately from “conservatives.” When they use their faith as the rationale for their bully-tactics, they only besmirch it.

    I think the tea parties have opened up the way back to leadership by example. Funny hats and misspelled picket signs aside, they’re on to something.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 16, 2010 @ 3:10 pm - November 16, 2010

  100. Nothing to add, just wanted to be post 100 ;-)

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 16, 2010 @ 3:49 pm - November 16, 2010

  101. D’oh, Livewire. You beat me. OK, I’ll settle for 101. Quite telling that this debate reached this many posts. If this gets the Tea Party supported gov’t that much closer to focusing on the solutions we elected them to, all the better.

    Comment by PopArt — November 16, 2010 @ 4:14 pm - November 16, 2010

  102. TL, your #100 was cleaner and more useful than several of the preceding 99.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 16, 2010 @ 4:30 pm - November 16, 2010

  103. Let’s leave the lap dog echo chambered antics for just a second and return to the thread’s real topic… sigh… the likely incoming RNC Chair, Michigan’s Saul Anuzis, had a press conference at the Natl Press Club today and he opined that the GOP should, indeed, stay away from soc con issues and stay on economic, pocketbook and kitchen table issues to get America back on track. “There’s nothing back there that can help us get ahead today” -Saul.

    I guess if RNC Chair Steele hasn’t gotten his own “Ignore the Gays” memo, it’s getting ready to be served up with a termination notice.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 16, 2010 @ 5:34 pm - November 16, 2010

  104. [...] UPDATE II: Gay Patriot chimes in. [...]

    Pingback by Fighting Over the “Truce” | Blogs For Victory — November 16, 2010 @ 9:55 pm - November 16, 2010

  105. AE, you’ve been a total dick ever since your first comment. You came in with a hostile attitude and you’ve kept it throughout.

    1) I dont think I was being a dick, and I was the one who made the comment, so I should know,
    2) Other peole dont agree with you :

    1) AE’s right. In order to truly call a cease-fire on social issues, then these issues ought not be raised on either side.

    2) That’s the issue I see, AE, tho I feel we have issues with it for different reasons.

    3) Very well put, AE. And yes, Dan will now conveniently stop replying to comments in this thread

    4) AE, I just want to state that I find your arguments lodged here are appropriately pointed and I don’t get the sense that you’re putting words in anyone’s mouth or misstating the relevant aspects of DADT as mostly a social issue… nor the notion of how it plays into the toic… “Memo to GOP: Ignore the Gays”.

    And you think THIS is being a dick?…

    Okay, here’s the consistency/credibility test:

    (1) Will Dan, Bruce and GOProud go on record saying that congress must NOT overturn DADT no matter what the conclusions of the military report say? And that congress must not for any reason overturn DOMA?

    (2) Will Dan, Bruce and GOProud fight to get congress to drop the issues should they take them up?

    (3)If the answer to any of the above is “no”, or anything short of a definite, unqualified “yes”, how can you claim to have any credibility whatsoever on the matter?

    (If history is any indication, Dan will now conveniently stop replying to comments in this thread.)

    To quote Christie, if you think that’s being a dick, you should see me when I’m angry. Whats being a dick about calling out a blatant, hypocritical contradiction, that other people and other blogs see too? Because I also called Dan out on his long history of conveniently ignoring people who disagree with him when they have actual election results, exit polls, demographic trends and other facts that contradict his argument? Other people have noticed that tendency too, as I highlighted above.

    So, yes, I suppose my comments on the subject have been getting more and more in Dan’s face to force him to actually respond to the facts that contradict his argument, and his very clearly illustrated hypocrisy.

    If you want to see me being as sweet as pie on the subject, go back several months, ever since Dan has been arguing that Republicans should not run on/should ignore social issues, when I started posting exit polls, demographic trends, election results, etc, that contradicted his arguments, and you’ll also notice that that is where Dan stopped responding to my comments, precisely because they were backed up much more convincingly than his own.

    Dan has been advocating and arguing for gay marriage (even though he claims to be ambivalent about it, every post he writes is about how to get it passed, or why its a good idea, or why he voted for it, or why he supports repeal of prop 8, and how people, candidates and congress who appose gay marriage shouldn’t actually do anything to keep the courts from dictating it, etc…) and repealing DADT as long as I’ve been coming here, and while Bruce claims hes is closer to my opinion on DADT (which is that it should only be done if it wont harm effectiveness or recruiting, and that we shouldn’t be distracting the military with it at all during wartime) yet he celebrated when courts ruled it unconstitutional and was bouncing off the walls when the Democrat House voted to repeal it in the middle of two wars, LONG BEFORE any report, and, most hypocritically, in the middle of the SAME recession that he has called on Republicans to ignore social issues because the economy is whats important.

    Anyway, I’m glad this Clinton-era, legislated discrimination is on the pathway to repeal. Earlier this afternoon, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 to move toward repeal of DADT.

    …In all seriousness, I am pleased at this momentum — though there is much more to go before a repeal is complete.

    ~Bruce, last May, in the middle of the very same recession that he now claims is reason people should ignore social issues.

    (not to mention Obamacare, which is welfare and the mother of all social issues! Are they suddenly going to stop advocating its repeal?)

    So they push gay issues out of the one side of their mouths while they call on others to NOT address “gay issues” in the headline, and “social issues” in the letter.

    They are telling everyone else to go huddle up and talk about “fiscal issues NOT social issues”, while they continue moving THEIR social issues down the field applauding both court and congressional actions that help push their favored policies.

    Guess the economy isn’t that important when it comes to their favored social issues.

    Sorry, that’s blatant hypocrisy, and I am not the only one to notice. Several commenters here agreed with me, and as I pointed out, other bigger, mainstream blogs noticed the hypocrisy too.

    its what Democrats do! One standard for them, and a different standard for people who disagree with them.

    What I have dont is broken the cardinal rule of GayPatriot, which is not to disagree with the hosts, especially if you present evidence that contradicts them. In that case they will simply ignore you, and then call you names when you squawk loud enough that they cant ignore you any more.

    So much for meaningful discussion. And talk about childish.

    Sorry, I am very nice, but I wont just sit down and shut up when I think someone is wrong. I dont brown-nose, I try very hard to stick to my principles, be honest, and I call out dishonesty, errors and hypocrisy where I see it.

    That is apparently not welcomed on this blog, what is welcomed, are brown nosers and people who keep quiet when they think the bloggers are wrong.

    the same little clique that turns on anyone that dare disagree with Bruce or Dan. Sorry, I’m not here to be an up-sucking sycophant. And if that earns me Bruce’s ire, so be it. I thought he had more character than that. But whatever. Hes got ILC.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 17, 2010 @ 1:14 am - November 17, 2010

  106. I often agree with Bruce’s and Dan’s posts, and I am glad they host this blog -for its posts and commentators. Thanks, guys. But AE, in all his brusqueness, hit the truth.

    Co-signing a letter calling on a moratorium on social issues, while celebrating and encouraging events and legislation that address social issues (and some of the Gay Left’s intermediate and ultimate goals), doesn’t jive. There’s some cognitive dissonance occurring here, and I’m not sure which views are truly believed, and which are convenient.

    Dan and Bruce, will you guys put a moratorium on your social issues, too?

    Comment by Brendan in Philly — November 17, 2010 @ 2:25 am - November 17, 2010

  107. I’d also point out that the tactic of ‘not fighting the guys attacking’ was last pioneered by Trotsky in WW I, we saw how well that worked.

    A ‘true’ cease fire would be to not bring it up, but if the other side does, then you open up with every tool in the arsenal to bring it down. So no talk of a federal marriage ammendment, and no talk of DOMA, as an example.

    I’ll leave DADT out of it, since I consider that more a military question than a social question.

    I want the budget cut, no DREAM act snuck in.

    I want Obamacare repealed, no DOMA language stuck in.

    If the House could honestly presetn streamlined bills, w/o pork or payouts, it would run a lot smoother and transparent.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 17, 2010 @ 8:19 am - November 17, 2010

  108. From GOProud site in regards to the letter:
    Already, there are Washington insiders and special interest groups that hope to co-opt the Tea Party’s message and use it to push their own agenda – particularly as it relates to social issues. We are disappointed but not surprised by this development. We recognize the importance of values but believe strongly that those values should be taught by families and our houses of worship and not legislated from Washington, D.C.

    It is also interesting that the list of those supporting this letter lists
    both Dan and Bruce as ‘Conservative Activist and Blogger’.

    Comment by rusty — November 17, 2010 @ 8:26 am - November 17, 2010

  109. It’s a sad day when any GP commentor is reduced to quoting Seane-Anna smears as a defensive measure.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 17, 2010 @ 8:59 am - November 17, 2010

  110. ILC,

    Stopped clocks and all that :P

    Seriously, there are things SA and I agree on, and things we disagree on, same as you and I. I’ve been vocal in my defense of marriage as being between a man and a woman, ‘you people’ can go Fred. I’ve also been opposed to judicial interference but supportive of legislative creation. Some posters support ‘by any means’ on their issues. I have a stand, I’m also smart enough to know I can’t win everything, and what I want isn’t always the only constitutional answer.

    AE does have a point. To say ‘you can’t use this on social issues, well social issues we agree with’ is wrong. Would you expect the ‘right’ to stay quiet if the issue of reperations was dragged up? After all, that’s a social issue. Securing the border is a ‘social issue’ to some, so should the conservatives let the DREAM act pass w/o a protest?

    The 2010 election was a mandate for TEA. But to roll over on ever other issue, to have ‘no war – no peace’ would be as useful for the conservatives as it would be for the Soviets.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 17, 2010 @ 9:11 am - November 17, 2010

  111. Dan and Bruce, will you guys put a moratorium on your social issues, too?

    Brendan, asking with great respect, could you be more specific about the issues you would have in mind?

    Take DADT. Many on all sides here have expressed, in essence, that it should only be pushed if it turns out the military wants it. We could be having a ‘violent agreement’ on that.

    What else? Have Bruce and Dan pushed too hard for, say, DOMA repeal? To they extent they may favor it (and I’d have to check the record), does the cease-fire concept mean that people must not state their opinions? I expect not; stating one’s personal conviction and setting legislative priorities are two different things.

    Just FTR, you said earlier that “I say we (conservatives) should all stick the issues of redefining marriage and allowing abortion in their proper venue: state legislatures.” I think I can agree. I am probably to the left of you on abortion, but I think it would be more constitutionally faithful if Roe v. Wade fell at least in part, so that more aspects of it were a State issue. Likewise, on gay marriage, I have said for several years now (even if I didn’t in the 1990s) that it should be a question for State legislatures.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 17, 2010 @ 9:24 am - November 17, 2010

  112. TL: As regards SA, perhaps I should have put some highlighting on the word “smears”. I had in mind a comment of SA’s that could only be characterized as incorrect/unfair.

    Would you expect the ‘right’ to stay quiet if the issue of reperations was dragged up? After all, that’s a social issue. Securing the border is a ‘social issue’ to some, so should the conservatives let the DREAM act pass w/o a protest?

    With friendship TL, you’re getting into Straw Man territory. Let’s go back to what GOProud’s letter actually says.

    “On behalf of limited-government conservatives everywhere, we write to urge you and your colleagues in Washington to put forward a legislative agenda in the next Congress that reflects the principles of the Tea Party movement,” they write to presumptive House Speaker John Boehner and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell in an advance copy provided to POLITICO. “This election was not a mandate for the Republican Party, nor was it a mandate to act on any social issue.”

    Nothing in that says you should stop having or expressing your conviction against gay marriage; or for that matter, for it. Nothing says you should stop having your conviction for or against DADT repeal. Nothing says you should meekly submit to absurdities like reparations or the DREAM act, when leftist nutjobs try to put them on the legislative agenda.

    It says in essence that Tea Party issues should be brought to the top of the legislative agenda. As opposed to, say, abortion or gay teacher bans (if it’s true that DeMint proposed one; I’ve still neglected to check). Or Terry Schiavo, a State issue if there ever was one.

    So, it doesn’t say to stop having your convictions. It doesn’t say to stop fighting nonsense. It says, there is a limited amount of time on the legislative calendar and let’s have Tea Party / fiscal issues at the top of it. OK?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 17, 2010 @ 9:39 am - November 17, 2010

  113. Well I don’t think I’m getting into straw man territory, your milage may vary :-)

    My point is, with a senate still in Democrat hands, we will see their social agenda set forth. The Socons shouldn’t shut up and sing when they see it, they should blast it to hell.

    I can understand and agree with the Republicans not putting So-Con issues to the fore (like I said, I’m a social conservative, but would like to have a country to be a So-Con in). But to say that So-Con issues shouldn’t be addressed, is a disservice to those people who did vote for the social cons.

    Like I said, fix the country first, then we’ll fight over the Social issues, and the stupid ones too. We all have our blind spots, and I at least appriciate when people point mine out to me.

    I would say let’s call a truceand go back to laughing at Levi, gillie and Dooms, but they’ve been quiet of late.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 17, 2010 @ 9:55 am - November 17, 2010

  114. My point is, with a senate still in Democrat hands, we will see their social agenda set forth. The Socons shouldn’t shut up and sing when they see it, they should blast it to hell.

    fix the country first, then we’ll fight over the Social issues…

    let’s call a truceand go back to laughing at Levi, gillie and Dooms

    We can strongly agree on the points I’ve quoted.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 17, 2010 @ 9:59 am - November 17, 2010

  115. As for DeMint, I finally looked it up. According to CBS News, he has not proposed or supported a gay teacher ban in his capacity as Senator. He said something off-the-cuff showing it’s his true opinion; but when it caused a controversy, he apologized for the controversy i.e. from 2010 campaign issues, which we know were basically fiscal / Tea Party issues. Until I’m told otherwise, I will think it *possible* that DeMint could even agree with GOProud’s letter.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 17, 2010 @ 10:05 am - November 17, 2010

  116. Sorry, typo, “for the controversy i.e. -for the distraction- from 2010 campaign issues”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 17, 2010 @ 10:06 am - November 17, 2010

  117. Off the cuff. . .Guess Jimmy and Chris thought different:

    Homosexual activists, GOProud attack Jim DeMint: “Trying His Best to Make Alvin Greene Look Sane”
    GOProud ^ | Oct 5, 2010 | JImmy LaSalvia

    Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2010 6:58:08 PM by DesertRenegade

    On Friday, United States Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) told a crowd in South Carolina that he supports barring openly gay teachers, as well as sexually active unmarried female teachers, from the school system. “Jim DeMint’s comments can only be described as outrageous and bizarre. The idea that someone who says they believe in limited government would support the government weeding out gay teachers and unmarried sexually active female teachers simply defies logic,” said Christopher R. Barron, Chairman of the GOProud Board. “Jim DeMint is doing his best to make Alvin Greene look sane.”

    “A real limited government conservative would be talking about getting the government less involved in education – not more involved. Instead of talking about shutting down the Department of Education, supporting school choice and protecting parents’ rights to homeschool their children, Jim DeMint instead wants the government even more involved in our education system, and involved in a way that would invade the personal lives of every teacher in this country,” continued Barron.

    DeMint’s comments come on the heels of increased media attention to the problem of bullying of gay teenagers and the tragically high rates of gay teen suicide. “At a time when we need to be having a serious discussion about the silent epidemic of gay teen suicide, Jim DeMint’s comments send a powerful and disturbing message to people all across the country,” said Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director of GOProud. “For a man who speaks a great deal about morality, Jim DeMint’s comments represent some of this most morally reprehensible comments made by a politician in modern history.”

    “It is clear that the socially conservative big government wing of the Republican Party is desperate to undermine and co-op the message and enthusiasm of the tea party movement. After a year and a half of attacking the tea party movement for not being focused on their pet issues, it is clear that Tony Perkins and his crowd have embraced a new strategy – if you can’t beat’em, join’em. The tea party movement is about limiting the size and scope of the government and empowering indiviudals. The grassroots tea party activists should reject attempts by Washington Republicans like Jim DeMint to corrupt the movement’s conservative message,” concluded LaSalvia.

    Comment by rusty — November 17, 2010 @ 10:45 am - November 17, 2010

  118. One last thing. NDT’s link at #82: http://northdallasthirty.blogspot.com/2010/11/open-letter-to-goproud.html

    I frankly disagree with some of it… but I can recommend it as well-written and thought-provoking. NDT, I’d encourage you to be more visible, in this thread.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 17, 2010 @ 10:49 am - November 17, 2010

  119. rusty, hmmm. I suppose that after being called less sane than Alvin Greene, DeMint might be inclined to avoid agreeing with GOProud.

    It’s true that banning gay teachers is a terrible idea (especially if done Federally). But it’s also an idea that almost no one can take seriously. I am going to criticize GOProud there for being unnecessarily intense; perhaps burning a bridge” unnecessarily. DeMint is a great leader on the fiscal issues,

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 17, 2010 @ 10:57 am - November 17, 2010

  120. ILC, I’m referring to whichever issues the GOProud letter is referring to. It’s not specific about which issues need to be hushed up, so I cannot be more specific. But if it’s expected on one side to stop trumpeting, then it should be expected on both sides.

    Comment by Brendan in Philly — November 17, 2010 @ 12:02 pm - November 17, 2010

  121. Brendan – That’s a fair answer; they weren’t specific either (or first).

    I would note (yet again, sorry) that Barron goes on to explain in his quotes to Politico, that one example of what he meant was DeMint’s belief that we should ban gay teachers. Which I have now criticized both of them for. (DeMint for having a bad idea, Barron for possibly overreacting or taking it too seriously.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 17, 2010 @ 12:08 pm - November 17, 2010

  122. Social engineering lives on in Liberal-land, and especially in intrusive government legislation. I don’t see how social issues can be avoided. Push back or you’ll get run over!!!

    Comment by anon23532 — November 17, 2010 @ 12:36 pm - November 17, 2010

  123. “I don’t see how social issues can be avoided. Push back or you’ll get run over!!!”

    Anon is saying something very important here. While we’re busy playing “gotcha” over the supposed contradictions in the bloggers’ stand, we may be ignoring the very purpose for which the blog was created to begin with.

    Are we to completely stop talking about whether the American military should function according to its own professed principles? Are we to allow it to punish people for things they have not even done yet — on the principle that they MIGHT do it? That is neither “progressive” nor “conservative.” It is insane.

    Perhaps, springing from our discussion of whether actual malfeasance in the military (as elsewhere) will be punished, to whether even potential (and possibly imagined) malfeasance will be fanatically rooted out, we may enter into one over whether we will continue to allow rapists, gang-bangers, murderers, drug addicts and white supremacists to continue in our military — as indeed they now exist.

    I don’t support imposing silence on social issues. I support considering them in a more rational light, and talking about them differently — more thoughtfully.

    This must include, I think, allowing our enlisted men and women to be honest about who they are, yet holding their behavior to a high standard and permitting no misbehavior. Their committed relationships with other consenting adults would, therefore, not be our concern. Our concern would be justice in the military and right conduct by those who serve in its ranks.

    No one group of people — be they on the political Left OR the Right — possesses the wisdom necessary to rule over everybody else. It is this principle that makes libertarians advise small and limited government. The object of “societal good” makes petty little tyrants attempt to seize power to hold over the rest of us. These people are collectivists, and true conservatives have the humility and wisdom to understand that.

    I don’t wish to put words in the mouths of the bloggers. But I see at least the potential for changing the game at this crucial point in our history, and I suspect this might be the direction they are intending to go. I have more goodwill toward them than to think a simple game of “gotcha” against them is fair, or serves the conversation they are trying to encourage.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 17, 2010 @ 1:55 pm - November 17, 2010

  124. Lori, your post is well thought out and articulates your points beautifully.

    However (you knew one was coming…) I disagree with this part as it appears to be written:

    This must include, I think, allowing our enlisted men and women to be honest about who they are, yet holding their behavior to a high standard and permitting no misbehavior. Their committed relationships with other consenting adults would, therefore, not be our concern. Our concern would be justice in the military and right conduct by those who serve in its ranks.

    We *do* restrict behaviour of consenting adults in the military for good reason. Officers dating enlisted, soldiers dallying with married women, etc. When it comes to a volunteer army, these restrictions are needed, even if all parties are ‘consenting adults’

    (nothing scarrier than a jilted Ex with a rocket launcher!)

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 17, 2010 @ 3:39 pm - November 17, 2010

  125. [...] Memo to GOP: Ignore the Gays [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » The political & practical limits of ignoring social issues — November 17, 2010 @ 3:40 pm - November 17, 2010

  126. Yes, Livewire, but we don’t restrict heterosexuals in the military from having committed relationships. The question is not whether any sort of behavior will be restricted at all, but which sort.

    This is, of course, the crux of the argument. Not whether they are “consenting adults,” per se, but what sort of a relationship they have. Restricting them from building stable homes is not making their behavior toward one another any more ethical, orderly or responsible. If anything, a good case can be made that it is eroding the very foundation for ethical, orderly and responsible behavior.

    Does the question of whether the picture in a soldier’s wallet is of someone of the opposite sex or the same sex have as great a bearing on good conduct and — that magic word — “cohesiveness” as that of whether he or she is an avowed white supremacist, or whether he or she has habitually engaged in violent crime?

    The latter question should certainly be a part of the debate, too.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 17, 2010 @ 3:52 pm - November 17, 2010

  127. It’s reasonable to ban relationships/proclivities which undermine unit effectiveness. Hence, for example, the ban on fraternization and on adultery. (As well as on rape, which is obviously a crime, and the bans on many other crimes.)

    In 2010, do same-sex relationships/proclivities per se still undermine unit effectiveness? Someone brought up the unique situation of Marines. What about the other branches? But my answer here again is: I want to know the military’s input.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 17, 2010 @ 4:45 pm - November 17, 2010

  128. Took the words right out of my mouth, ILC.

    Lori, I’m saying the military can and does restrict relationships between two consenting adults. Is being in a relationship with someone of the same sex a military concern? *shakes magic 8-ball* signs point to ‘no’, but if there is a reason from a military standpoint then we need to consider that.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 17, 2010 @ 4:58 pm - November 17, 2010

  129. ILC and Livewire, I like and respect you both. I’m not trying to be difficult. But I still want to know what sort of a “military” mind regards it as more disruptive to cohesiveness that some gay or lesbian soldier quietly lives his or her life with a committed partner — not bothering anybody else — than it is to allow white supremacists and criminal thugs into the armed forces.

    I’m not saying that cohesiveness, order or morale are not legitimate concerns. I merely want to know how gays and lesbians can be considered a greater danger to the military than anyone else?

    Perhaps we should commission a study about that. Just sayin’.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 17, 2010 @ 6:32 pm - November 17, 2010

  130. Lori, here’s my two c-bills,

    DADT and the laws on sodomy in general, are relics of the past. Back in the 50′s-90′s, when we had a) a united enemy and b) homosexuality was still condemned publicly being a closeted gay/lesbian/BDSM type was harmful to cohesion and a security risk.

    To this fat and happy civilian, that time is in the past. But… and here’s the qualifier. if the military determines it to be an issue, that has to be considered. Just as a loving committed relationship between officers and enlisted would be an issue.

    Hope that makes sense.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 17, 2010 @ 6:55 pm - November 17, 2010

  131. Livewire, I do not disagree that ultimately the military must decide the issue and not politicians or uninformed civilians. So I really don’t disagree with you.

    But as one whose taxes are being used to support that military — as well as a citizen whose safety it exists to protect — I can assure you that if cohesiveness, order and readiness are used as excuses to continue to ban gay and lesbian people from the military, I intend to be one of those who will rise up to demand that this concern for cohesiveness, order and readiness be carried out across the board.

    If these values truly matter, then they should matter all the time and not merely when gays and lesbians are involved.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 17, 2010 @ 7:16 pm - November 17, 2010

  132. I merely want to know how gays and lesbians can be considered a greater danger to the military than anyone else? Perhaps we should commission a study about that.

    Agreed.

    When I say, let’s get the military’s input here in 2010, I mean just that. I am personally inclined to lift DADT, i.e. to permit openly gay soldiers (who are otherwise willing to be good soldiers and follow the rules). I just recognize my lack of expertise in this matter, and the impracticality (both political and military) of proceeding on it, without it being something the military says it wants.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 17, 2010 @ 7:18 pm - November 17, 2010

  133. ILC, you and I agree — to a point. I just want to explain something.

    On an almost daily basis now, my gay and lesbian friends are asking me to explain why I have become a libertarian-conservative and joined the Republican Party. I have been telling them that conservatism — properly understood — is not against us. That it supports the concept of one standard — the same one — for everybody, rather than different standards for different little groups of people.

    Then they point to the way the military treats gays and lesbians differently than everyone else — supposedly in the name of order and discipline, but very obviously not so, given what the military allows other people to get away with — and honestly, I don’t know what to tell them.

    The military clearly has a discipline problem in a general sense. What seems to concern it is that skinheads and neo-Nazis and rednecks who don’t like gays are going to harm them. I do think this is at the core of why many in the military don’t want us there — in a sense, they want to protect us. It doesn’t make them bigots. It does show that they have a problem with discipline, in a larger sense, that they don’t want to deal with.

    Same thing as what’s happening in the schools. Gay kids should not be treated as a special class and protected merely because they’re gay. But there’s been a general breakdown of discipline in the schools — which is why bullying (of anybody) is a problem in the first place.

    The political Right has gained the reputation of defending and coddling bullies. If those on the Right are waving the white flag of surrender to the spoiled brats in society who insist on more coddling — or they’ll make trouble — I simply fail to see what the hell is so conservative about that. Conservatives have always claimed to stand for order and discipline. All I’m saying is that it’s high time they started showing it.

    If I, as a lesbian, joined the Navy expecting my tour to be like an Olivia cruise, and used my time at sea to harrass my straight comrades-at-arms, I would very rightly be tossed out on my butt. I think that’s the way it should be. But if the real reason I might be discharged is because some neo-Nazi wants to kill me and the Navy doesn’t want to deal with the problem of neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other thugs and criminals in their ranks, I would like to hope all right-minded Americans would have a problem with that.

    Is in really “impractical” to have gays and lesbians serve openly in the military, or has it become impractical for the military to keep order and discipline in its ranks in general? Is it “impractical” to crack down on bullying in the public schools, or is it impractical for those who are supposed to be the adults in our society to keep student culture from degenerating into “Lord of the Flies?”

    I want to know what to tell my progressive friends when they ask me those questions. Thus far, the answers I myself have gotten, when I ask them, have been unclear.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 17, 2010 @ 8:09 pm - November 17, 2010

  134. Thank you Brendan (and others),

    I can accept “brusqueness”, I was definitely brusque. I call it exasperation.

    But I agree with Dan and Bruce (and GOProud) most of the time too, I just believe they are wrong here. they are slapping social conservatives in the face for no good reason whatsoever, throwing your friends under the bus rather than standing up to your adversaries lies about them, and being more than a little bit hypocritical on social issues. It’s nice to see so many people agreeing with me, despite my brusqueness.

    Its just a point I have been making, with lots of supporting evidence for months, and that has been dutifully ignored just as long. It does get exasperating.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 17, 2010 @ 9:39 pm - November 17, 2010

  135. Lori, thanks for your thoughtful response! It’s late now, I may have thoughts in the morning.

    I did notice this poll on HotAir. They’re Christian-owned, they’re reputed to have a social-conservative readership… which agrees with the GOProud, Tea Party approach by a margin of 3 to 1: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/17/in-tea-party-poll-fiscal-issues-beat-out-social-issues-by-a-lot/

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 18, 2010 @ 2:28 am - November 18, 2010

  136. Lori,

    Have to be brief, but I’m not clear on something.

    I’ve been informed it’s more of a security issue, a relic from the 60′s. I’ve not seen data that they’re concerned about blanket parties for just being gay, as opposed to acting inappropriately towards another soldier. Do you have any links on the issue you could point me to?

    BTW, not all ‘rednecks’ are gay beating hicks. I’m damn proud to be a redneck. ;-)

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 18, 2010 @ 7:16 am - November 18, 2010

  137. But if the real reason I might be discharged is because some neo-Nazi wants to kill me and the Navy doesn’t want to deal with the problem of neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other thugs and criminals in their ranks, I would like to hope all right-minded Americans would have a problem with that.

    If that’s the real reason, I would have a problem with it too. But I’ve been told by military people here and there (by no means all) that the real reason is what you could call the “showers” issue – that the unavoidably intimate situations of military life just work better when everyone can pretend that no one present would be sexually interested or even secretively/involuntarily getting jollies from it.

    I’m not taking a stand on whether that is the “real reason” or (in 2010) even a good reason. Just reporting.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 18, 2010 @ 9:42 am - November 18, 2010

  138. (And, emphasis on “pretend”. Gays always have been covertly present; a good chunk of straight people covertly have at least a little bit of ‘bi’ interest as reflected on the Kinsey scale; yadda yadda.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 18, 2010 @ 9:49 am - November 18, 2010

  139. Livewire, the only “links” I can provide is testimony from friends who have served in the military themselves and somehow made it through though they are gay. They report they were well aware of the other gays in uniform because they tended to talk to each other — as young people thousands of miles from home will naturally do. Most of the sexual misbehavior was, they assure me, being indulged in by the straights. Most of the gays were too scared to fall out of line.

    I guess real people don’t count as “links.”

    And the shower thing is ridiculous. In junior high and high school P.E., we showered with others of our sex because it was expected of us. If we were paranoid about being peeped at, we were told to grow up and get over it. If the military cannot do the same, then yes indeed, they have a discipline problem.

    I’ll bet our troops are worried about more imporant things than that.

    Seriously, Livewire and ILC, I understand the argument being made. I just see a larger trend at work. It’s probably not just a Right-wing trend, because we see it on the Left as well. Those who act up and create the ruckus are not regarded as the problem, because the authorities are afraid — for whatever reason — to ruffle their feathers. So they pick on the gays instead.

    It’s not your fault, of course. I’m just noting the trend. I suppose if the Catholic Church can get away with it, the military thinks it can, as well.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 18, 2010 @ 12:48 pm - November 18, 2010

  140. It’s ok. My understanding of the army’s all anecdotal, since I’m a civilian, and my brother’s the soldier.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 18, 2010 @ 4:39 pm - November 18, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.