Gay Patriot Header Image

GOP becoming increasingly accepting of gay Republicans

Reader MV passed along a McClatchy article on a “quiet transformation is taking place in the Republican Party, which has begun to embrace openly gay candidates – and among gay Republicans, who now feel more comfortable speaking out in a party that may have accepted them but didn’t always show it.

The article reports how the party is rallying behind one openly gay candidate,

Richard Tisei, a former Massachusetts state senator, who’s campaigning on what he describes as the number one issue for gay voters and everyone else in the state’s 6th Congressional District, north of Boston.

“In general, the campaign I’m running on is based on the economy,” he said.

Tisei does support same-sex marriage, and he said party leaders knew that from the beginning of his campaign for Congress.

“I don’t agree with the party platform, but that doesn’t mean I’m not a good Republican,” Tisei said.

Hmmm. . .  where did I hear that recently?

Tisei’s sexuality notwithstanding,

The National Republican Congressional Committee has designated Tisei as a “Young Gun,” meaning he’s on the national party’s radar and can expect to get more resources for his campaign. Committee Chairman Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas said Tisei “has met organizational and fundraising benchmarks and has established himself as a strong contender.”

Does seem like some folks might need to change their narratives.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Chris H offers:

I’ve been saying this for years.. but once the “gay” thing goes away, the Democrats are going to have a really hard time maintaining their grasp on to the LGBT alphabet community.

My gay friends sure hate those Republicans … but when I discuss Liberterian/Republican concepts with out identifying them as “Republican” I generally get agreement.

Read the whole thing.

Share

25 Comments

  1. I hope that openly gay candidates can also get the nomination in races that a Republican has a chance to win. Just as important, there need to be more straight Republicans that support same-sex marriage elected to congress. It won’t do if the only elected Republicans that support SSM are themselves gay.

    Comment by Andrew — May 25, 2012 @ 2:36 pm - May 25, 2012

  2. I’ve been saying this for years.. but once the “gay” thing goes away, the Democrats are going to have a really hard time maintaining their grasp on to the LGBT alphabet community.

    My gay friends sure hate those Republicans … but when I discuss Liberterian/Republican concepts with out identifying them as “Republican” I generally get agreement.

    Hate those outrageous parking tickets and traffic fines? Well the city and state are broke because they’re paying outrageous union pensions and benefits… Hate smoking bans? Those politicians know better than you – and then rob you blind by jacking your taxes up on cigarettes…etc…etc. $10, 20 bucks for a new light bulb? .10 cents for a bag at the grocery store? I could go on and on.

    It’s all liberal Democrat politicians that push this on us, yet they can’t make the connection. All they know is if they don’t vote D, then all the R’s will round them up in to concentration camps.

    I keep thinking back to that CNN poll in 2008 that found 30%ish of gays voted Republican. I see that steadily increasing to match the split between the general voting population eventually as the gay thing goes away.

    Comment by Chris H — May 25, 2012 @ 5:22 pm - May 25, 2012

  3. Romney, Perry, Santorum, Gingrich all said DADT repeal was a mistake. Several of them said they’d like to bring DADT back if they were elected.

    Texas GOP platform still says
    “We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. [...] We oppose the legalization of sodomy.”

    Several GOP Senators still vote against confirming openly gay judges, just because.

    It is still mainstream in the GOP to be anti-gay.

    So we should change our narratives — to just what, exactly?

    Comment by Tom1729 — May 25, 2012 @ 6:49 pm - May 25, 2012

  4. Nobody is denying that opposition to homosexuality is still a big part of factions of the Republican party. The point of the article is that the party is slowly becoming more accepting. It’s a largely generational thing and as the old guard dies off, you’ll have new young members coming in are far more comfortable with gays and lesbians.

    Besides, it was just 50 years ago that Democrats opposed civil rights. In fact, it was a group of senate Democrats that organized the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It was a Democrat (FDR) that set up the racist Japenese internment camps during WWII. Democrats and the Klu Klux Klan had quite a bit of involvement with each other.. etc etc

    However, within about 10 years or so, the Democrats are supposedly the champions of minorities. Who’s to say that won’t change again?

    Once SSM is resolved… what else do Democrats have to offer LGBTs? If you think about it – factions of the Democrat party are working against LGBTs:

    - Minorities against SSM
    - Unions bankrupting cities, counties and states requiring higher taxes, (and LGBTs tend to be higher earners), higher fees (parking tickets, traffic fines, etc)
    - Environmentalists – crushing regulation leading to higher gas prices, higher food prices, difficulty in starting new businesses
    - Nannies (smoking laws, food police, etc)

    Once the LGBT get their precious piece of paper – will they continue to put up with all that or will they start looking elsewhere.

    I think some will.

    Comment by Chris H — May 25, 2012 @ 7:54 pm - May 25, 2012

  5. It is still mainstream in the GOP to be anti-gay.

    So we should change our narratives — to just what, exactly?

    Comment by Tom1729 — May 25, 2012 @ 6:49 pm – May 25, 2012

    Yup.

    You should just tell people that gays and lesbians like you are welfare addicts who are most interested in using the government’s power to punish churches and take money from working people so you don’t have to work yourself, and that’s why you support the Obama Party.

    You should also state that you don’t care if people sexually harass/discriminate against gays, fire gays, or support bans on gay marriage — all of which you used to call “antigay” — as long as they continue to vote Obama, punish churches, and give you welfare.

    That will put matters into very nice perspective. You will be exposed as simply grifters who are hiding behind your minority status.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2012 @ 8:56 pm - May 25, 2012

  6. Apparently some people expect those of us who support traditional marriage to just sit back and roll over. No.

    Comment by Kyle — May 26, 2012 @ 1:41 am - May 26, 2012

  7. Apparently some people expect those of us who support including same-sex couples in traditional marriage to just sit back and roll over. No.

    Comment by Richard R — May 26, 2012 @ 9:18 am - May 26, 2012

  8. Ah, but you see, Richard Rush, you don’t really support including gay-sex couples in traditional marriage; you want to use the power of government to punish religious belief and gorge yourself at the welfare trough.

    You have no intention of being responsible or faithful. You have no intention of giving back to society. You and your fellow pig leftists have spent years spitting on and mocking marriage, and people know it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 26, 2012 @ 1:00 pm - May 26, 2012

  9. So, Richard R, once you make society include same sex couples in traditional marriage, how can you justify excluding any other unconventional domestic arrangement in “traditional” marriage?

    Comment by Seane-Anna — May 26, 2012 @ 6:44 pm - May 26, 2012

  10. And will someone here please explain why it’s so important to get SSM, anyway? That’s not a rhetorical question. I really want to know. Most authors here on GP seem to be all over the map on this issue. Dan especially talks out of both sides of his mouth on SSM, mostly supporting it but sometimes arguing that it’s not that important in the grand scheme of things; acknowledging that gay couples can legally protect their relationships without SSM; and insisting that anti-gay hatred is NOT the motive behind most opposition to SSM, thereby undermining gay activists’ prime accusation against SSM opponents.

    So, what gives? Just why is it so important, even for so-called conservative gays, to destroy the venerable understanding of marriage that’s prevailed across cultures, races, and religions since the dawn of time? And don’t give me that civil rights argument. If that’s what this was really all about gays would be championing legal recognition of ALL possible relationships people could have: straight, gay, plural, incestuous, intergenerational, etc. That’s not happening, yet. So what’s the end game? Again, I really want to know, but I don’t think many gays are ready to let the proverbial cat out of the bag. If they did I suspect it would cause a fierce backlash against the whole idea of “gay rights”. But the question is out there for anyone who wants to give an honest answer.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — May 26, 2012 @ 7:04 pm - May 26, 2012

  11. “You and your fellow pig leftists have spent years spitting on and mocking marriage, and people know it.”

    EXACTLY, ND30! And that’s the big non-religious reason why I oppose SSM and am sooooo suspicious of the motives of its proponents. Most of those proponents are the very same “pig leftists” who’ve spent a generation “spitting on and mocking marriage”? They’re the same “pig leftists” who’ve told us that marriage is just a piece of paper. So why are they now so enamored of marriage that they think gays should be able to do it? Why is that piece of paper now so important that we can’t call ours a free and civilized nation if gays can’t get one? Something’s really, really wrong here. I can’t and won’t support gay marriage because I smell a giant rat and, unfortunately, most “conservative” gays are helping to spread the odor.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — May 26, 2012 @ 7:18 pm - May 26, 2012

  12. So, Richard R, once you make society include same sex couples in traditional marriage, how can you justify excluding any other unconventional domestic arrangement in “traditional” marriage?

    But…but…I can see Richard R. sputtering…but you do know the answer to your rhetorical question, right Seane-Anna? The reality, is: NO. There will be NO LIMIT. How can there possibly be one? Polygamists will have to be allowed to “marry.” (Hint: they’re already gearing up for the fight. I give it a year or two before that push starts.) There will be NO REASON that a brother and sister shouldn’t be allowed to marry. After all, loving each other and being committed is all that matters, right?

    There will be NO LIMIT, once this bridge is crossed. Just another institution the “progressives” have succeeded in their long march through.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — May 26, 2012 @ 8:38 pm - May 26, 2012

  13. This whole marriage issue often seems far more complicated/convoluted than it really needs to be.

    Fact: marriage does not require procreation, and procreation does not require marriage.

    Fact: Marriage provides tangible benefits to children, and many same-sex couples are raising children. Therefore, same-sex marriage benefits children.

    Fact: If opposite-sex married couples without children benefit from marriage, then same-sex couples without children also benefit from marriage.

    Quandary: If marriage provides tangible benefits for all the families involved, whether or not they have children, why is marriage right for opposite-sex couples, but wrong for same-sex couples? How does society benefit from one, but not the other? Aren’t the benefits to society calculated by adding up the number of families that are benefiting? If we add married same-sex couples to the mix, a larger percentage of society is receiving the benefits of marriage, so how is it possible that society is not benefiting?

    Conclusion: I acknowledge that same-sex marriage may seem a radical change from what people have perceived as “the way it’s always been.” But people can and do adjust to change, but seem to have the most difficulty with change that benefits people that they don’t like. Nowadays, for the most part, I think we are dealing with anti-equality people who are certain we are inferior, and therefore we should be denied the good things in life that they are privileged to enjoy. They are, after all, the good righteous people who deserve special rewards and rights for being superior. All the noise they generate about children, moms, dads, “protecting” marriage, and the worry about man/goat marriage, etc. is designed to assure the common people that they really are superior, and they need to protect themselves from the threat posed by inferiors. If so-called conservatives were not blinded by their deep animus, they would (or should) be insisting on the availability of same-sex marriage.

    Comment by Richard R — May 26, 2012 @ 9:41 pm - May 26, 2012

  14. Fact: There is nothing to prevent Richard R from engaging in a government recognized marriage.

    Fact: Being able to drive provides tangible benefits.

    Fact: Richard R, therefore must believe that blind people should be allowed to drive.

    Fact: Richard R is an idiot. (but I repeat myself.)

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 26, 2012 @ 10:19 pm - May 26, 2012

  15. Wow, Livewire, with talking points like yours, it’s no surprise that our side is winning the struggle for equal rights.

    Comment by Richard R — May 26, 2012 @ 10:52 pm - May 26, 2012

  16. Here’s another one:
    http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/09/the-gay-old-party

    Comment by MV — May 26, 2012 @ 11:20 pm - May 26, 2012

  17. Wow, Livewire, with talking points like yours, it’s no surprise that our side is winning the struggle for equal rights.

    Comment by Richard R — May 26, 2012 @ 10:52 pm – May 26, 2012

    That’s a hoot.
    If your side is winning, why has the ‘pro gay marriage’ question lost EVERY TIME it’s been put to a vote (referendum)? At last count I believe it’s 38 states that have voted to keep marriage an institution between one man and one woman.
    It looks like you’re another person who believes that ‘ a right‘ is whatever you happen to want or think is owed you at any given moment.
    Please understand, I realize why you want to achieve this goal. Too bad you think that calid arguments from the other side can be reduced to, in your words: “If so-called conservatives were not blinded by their deep animus, they would (or should) be insisting on the availability of same-sex marriage.
    Seems you need to work on YOUR ability to reason and debate these issues, before you chide anyone else (and The_Livewire stands head and shoulders above you in these skills, btw).
    Your argument @13 glosses over what many people know is an important fact in this debate: that men and women are different, with each bringing unique skills and perspectives to a relationship that are very important in raising children.
    Do you deny that this is true?
    If you answer ‘yes’, then you are also saying that men and women are essentially the same, and that there is nothing unique that a child can learn from one as opposed to the other, is that correct?

    One more from you, before I go:

    I acknowledge that same-sex marriage may seem a radical change from what people have perceived as “the way it’s always been.”

    Do you expect statments like this to be taken seriously? Do YOU take this seriously?
    It doesn’t just ‘seem‘ to be a radical change. It is a radical change.
    And ‘perceive’? I’ll state it accurately for you: “…. from the way it HAS always been.”
    There’s no hedging, doubt, uncertainty or ‘perceive’ to it, period.
    Since I’ve seen already that you don’t like and don’t respond directly to challenges: answer my question and rebuttals directly and honestly, or save yourself some time and act as if I never posted this.
    Thanks.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 27, 2012 @ 1:11 am - May 27, 2012

  18. I will make one concession that certain activists that are using this debate to forward their agenda of wreaking havoc on the stability provided families and marriages. But for most rank and file same-sex couples, it is simply about ensuring that their relationship is safeguarded against discriminatory actions of some authorities…. a couple I know is dealing with a sudden hospitalization of one partner when they were traveling half way across the country. It occurred to me how relieved I am that the city they’re in, for all it’s problems doesn’t have a problem allowing visits of the other partner. I started out being fine with just DP rights but considering how many opposite-gender couples over the decades have made a mockery of the institution of marriage, I say that many of the same-sex couples can only enhance it. And if I am so lucky as to meet a man who I could build a life with, damned any of you who say I can’t have hospital visits or bequeath to him whatever monies this piece of crap President hasn’t gotten his mitts on. While I don’t pretend to be a superior conservative than anyone else, it is clear the GOP needs the kind of vision brought by the Chris Barrons and Jimmy LaSalvias and Tammy Bruces.

    Regardless of how we deal with marriage as an institution worth protecting it is hysterical and ignorant to continue refusing to own up to the fact that so many Americans do in fact live and pursue the American Dream with the families they have made that consist of same-sex couples and it dishonors the conservative ideals of self-determination and limiting government interference with our lives.

    I happen to agree that Obama is engaging in an obscene attempt to eradicate any trace of Christianity or other non-Islamic religion from this country’s culture but a Rick Insanitarium style theocracy is not the perfect antidote but rather the flip side of the same poison pill Obama is force feeding us.

    Again, it flies in the face of what conservatism is to single out a specific group(s) for specific rights or penalties. Too many voices of both the gay rights activists and the so-called pro-family groups are obsessed with remaining in perpetual victim status, the Left by being so reliant and dependent upon their Dear Leader’s approval and the evangelicals by insisting on government overreach in the other direction. With all the ruin this President is inflicting on us all, this nonsense has GOT TO STOP.

    Comment by PopArt — May 27, 2012 @ 3:10 pm - May 27, 2012

  19. Your argument @13 glosses over what many people know is an important fact in this debate: that men and women are different, with each bringing unique skills and perspectives to a relationship that are very important in raising children.

    That may be true, but one major change that has happened to society is that same sex couples are now raising children, and that isn’t going to change any time soon. Obviously, the ideal scenario is to have children raised by their mother and their father, but that isn’t always realistic and any stable family situation (even if it is not ideal) is preferable to going through the system, moving around foster homes or something.

    I can’t bring myself to care about the issue of gay marriage in the least (that might be different if the institution of marriage was something that was still respectable, though) and I don’t think the state should be involved in marriage at all, but same sex couples are becoming increasingly “main stream” and, while I think heterosexual couples are superior, the reasons for their superiority (i.e. procreation) are becoming increasingly irrelevant as new methods of procreation are being developed (I’m not saying that is necessarily a good thing, but it is just reality now). I think both sides of this debate have good points, but I am really turned off by the behavior of many gay activists.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 27, 2012 @ 4:52 pm - May 27, 2012

  20. Oh, the hilarity of watching the sputtering bigots like Richard Rush paint themselves into rhetorical questions:

    First they start with this:

    Fact: marriage does not require procreation, and procreation does not require marriage.

    thus establishing their belief that marriage and procreation/child welfare are irrelevant to each other.

    But then:

    Fact: Marriage provides tangible benefits to children, and many same-sex couples are raising children. Therefore, same-sex marriage benefits children.

    So despite having stated that procreation and child welfare are irrelevant to marriage, Richard Rush tries to use both to argue for it.

    Here’s a better argument:

    1) Marriage provides tangible benefits to children and enhances their welfare

    2) Government subsidizes and promotes marriage to provide these benefits and welfare to children, who are unable to take care of themselves

    3) Opposite-sex couples, regardless of their intentions, can and do produce children by merely interacting with each other

    4) Same-sex couples, regardless of their intentions, will never produce children by merely interacting with each other.

    Therefore, given limited resources, why should government take away from children who need it so that gay-sex liberals like Richard Rush can gorge at the welfare trough?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 27, 2012 @ 6:20 pm - May 27, 2012

  21. And if I am so lucky as to meet a man who I could build a life with, damned any of you who say I can’t have hospital visits or bequeath to him whatever monies this piece of crap President hasn’t gotten his mitts on.

    So your whole point is that the government will mistreat you, so your recourse is to appeal to the same government to protect you.

    Or, put differently, your means of “self-determination” and “limiting government interference” in your life is to demand even more government support and government regulation.

    Next up:

    Again, it flies in the face of what conservatism is to single out a specific group(s) for specific rights or penalties.

    Actually, it doesn’t at all. Conservatives have no problem with saying that those who refuse to work shouldn’t make as much as those who do. Conservatives are totally in favor of the idea that saying that society should penalize those who choose to make bad choices. And conservatives are great believers in giving more privileges to those who exhibit and show greater responsibility.

    Here’s the basic issue, PopArt. Marriage exists because opposite-sex couples make babies, and those babies have no means to care for themselves other than their parents, no legal rights, no ability to make any sort of legal arrangements for their welfare, and no identity. Hence, we do everything in our power to promote and support those parents sticking together to provide their offspring with all of the above.

    But same-sex couples? There will never be a child produced by their actions. There will never be a helpless dependent in their relationship; it will always be two adults who are more than capable of paying their own bills, making their own legal arrangements, and with their own identities.

    You want better estate laws? Fine, raise them. Same with wills, powers of attorney, taxes on imputed income for insurance, and several other things.

    Why?

    Because none of those require a redefinition of marriage, AND they benefit a whole broad swath of people, married and not, straight and gay, etc.

    Gay marriage benefits no one and wastes money on people who can take care of themselves.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 27, 2012 @ 6:44 pm - May 27, 2012

  22. I was going to make a comment about what a jerk Richard Tisei is and that he is nothing more than an entrenched career politician … but I see that this thread has devolved into another peeing match.

    Comment by Julie the Jarhead — May 27, 2012 @ 7:14 pm - May 27, 2012

  23. Peeing match. . .too funny Julie, way too funny!

    Comment by rusty — May 27, 2012 @ 7:31 pm - May 27, 2012

  24. So your whole point is that the government will mistreat you, so your recourse is to appeal to the same government to protect you.

    Or, put differently, your means of “self-determination” and “limiting government interference” in your life is to demand even more government support and government regulation.

    Um actually no, not my point at all. Again my recourse is to tell the government that my taxes pay for to leave me and mine the hell alone and if crimes are committed against me and my family for the legal system to treat them as such….. and not as hate crimes… CRIMES. Sorry if you got the impression otherwise.

    Conservatives are totally in favor of the idea that saying that society should penalize those who choose to make bad choices. And conservatives are great believers in giving more privileges to those who exhibit and show greater responsibility.

    And again you assert we disagree on this when we don’t. What I do question here is whether you think same-sex couples adopting children in need of a home or just merely raising their biological children from an opposite-sex marriage or just being responsible (oops there’s that word again) productive members of society building a life with each other are in fact being IRRESPONSIBLE for being in an honest relationship like I just listed?

    And while I won’t copy them here your later paragraphs are actually concepts I’ve agreed with wholeheartedly in spite of your beliefs that I don’t. Again, I know about being responsible for my choices. I take fiscal responsibility by working productively through most of my adult years. I accepted that I would live on my savings when I took a year off to try and be a writer,and also after a layoff, when I went to school for a graduate degree, and am again fortunate to be employed for several years and trying to stay afloat in the face of this monster masquerading as a nice guy President. Knowing enough about debt through a mortgage and credit cards I DON’T want to be indebted to this SOB or any other government entity.

    The new blood the conservative movement (in my case RE-newed) is receiving from gay conservatives stands for these principles and can only help. With what is at stake from the Monster-in-Chief, it is counter-productive for some of you to respond with pathological fear and knee jerk assumptions that we are Occupy cretins who dress better. If it is through decades of therapy or a different take on religion, it is well worth it to choose to be happier about the direction we could all be taking and not so damn panicked about engaging with actual gay conservatives. It will also be easier for you to determine the true liberals and RINOs who are really causing the problems.

    God Bless!

    Comment by PopArt — May 28, 2012 @ 7:24 am - May 28, 2012

  25. [...] “My gay friends sure hate those Republicans“, Chris offered in the thread following another post, “but when I discuss Liberterian/Republican concepts with out identifying them as ‘Republican’ I generally get agreement.” [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » On economic liberty & social liberals’ anti-Republican narrative — June 2, 2012 @ 3:45 am - June 2, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.