Recently, Log Cabin Republicans were denied a booth at the Texas GOP convention. I’ve debated with myself (a little) if I should even mention it.
Why the disinterest? As longtime readers know, GP is a group blog. Bruce and Dan are Republicans; and more than that, Republicans who have had past dealings with LCR. One of them might want to cover this topic. But they seem to be busy these days. Posts lately have been written mainly by V the K (who has been awesome! – if a little incendiary at times 😉 ), and to a lesser extent by me.
And I have been an Independent for years. I believe V is too. In other words, as committed non-Republicans (presently doing the posts), we may often just not care about LCR-related news. The more so because, over the years and at the national level, LCR has so often abandoned the conservative and/or small-government principles that we believe in.
Speaking purely for myself (and with no knowledge of whether the Texas LCR group is better than national LCR), I can hardly blame any Republican group for wanting to exclude LCR from anything, since LCR so often seem to be barely-Republicans. I believe very much in freedom of association.
But it turns out that anti-gay animus could be at work, in this case, because the Texas GOP platform claims that “homosexuality tears at the fabric of society.” And that is worthy of comment. I find it silly, for the following reasons.
First, the Texas GOP may be inadvertently serving the interests of LCR: dignifying them with controversy (thus, publicity) that they may not deserve. Second, I do think it would be much more accurate to say that -the extreme Gay Left- tears at the fabric of society, as does the Left in general.
Your thoughts?
Isn’t incendiary a synonym for flaming?
Hmmm. 🙂
I was a member of LCR from 1999 until 2008 or so. They became more interested in being friends with the media than in espousing principles. GOProud was the conservative splinter group that I concur with, but they seem to do little in the realm of politics.
As I went through the Bush Administration, I became more libertarian and less Republican. Social conservatism and moderate views on economic matters were not my cup of tea.
While I am still a registered Republican in New Mexico, the party here is anemic as the Hispanics have made this a blue state at the national level, and mainly so at the state level. Being far from DC is a blessing, as my 12 years around the nation’s capital made me more cynical and less kind. The three years in New Mexico have been great for my mind as I relax.
Well said, well said.
However, consider if someone wanted to set up a booth for Left Handed Republicans. My comment on that would be, WHAT IS THE POINT??
Same with Irish-American Republicans or Plumber Republicans.
If we stand for certain principles, we should stand for those principles, and be able to defend them for everyone.
GOProud is going through the process of rebranding
http://sdgln.com/commentary/2014/06/02/goproud-reacts-claims-it-shutting-down-good#sthash.R5mZFwrC.dpbs
Is it possible the Texas LCR baited the Texas GOP into behaving exactly as the LCR hoped they would? Perhaps conspiratorial but I don’t trust the LCR, certainly not enough to be concerned they’re being denied space at a convention among those who don’t welcome them. Homosexuality’s harm to society is debatable but the LCR isn’t much of a threat to anyone, if only because from what I’ve observed the only fabric they can tear is ball gown.
I cant blame them if they are worried there might be another Dan Savage trying to perpetrate bio warfare, when the LCR are close to RINOS. Several leftist gays have said they want to see western civilization destroyed. They are not smart enough to know the leftist utopia they dream of would never happen as it requires a majority to ignore self interest. You have Dan Savage who bullies kids in school assemblies & went around licking (actual door) doorknobs when he had the flu at republican offices. All of the gay hate crime hoaxes of the past year doesn’t help either.
I don’t want govt. in my bedroom or wallet. I have been to Europe and have seen the great things white men have built and those that want to degrade & destroy western civilization cant do better than Detroit. Leftists that want to prove religion is an illusion, are not prepared for the fact civilization is an illusion in that if there are not enough whites or east Asians around it disappears.
The movie “the informant” about Brandon Darby shows just how bat sh!t crazy leftists are. He was a guy that just wanted to help people and was a hero of the left, only to see how crazy leftists are in their attempts to sabotage what they can’t have given to them.
Here is a post about racist elephants. Well not actually racist just ones that notice a pattern. Once bitten twice shy.
http://patriotupdate.com/2014/05/racist-elephants/
Steve – The fact that animals discriminate visually among people may show that it’s natural, but does not show that it’s desirable for us. I hope this thread won’t become “about race” now, but I must say that I agree with your comment EXCEPT for your having chosen to frame it in racial terms. It (our fight for civiliation) is not about race, it’s about values. Any country, or anyone of any race, is perfectly capable of adopting what has been great about Western culture/values. So I’d much rather talk about culture/values.
The Texas incident with the booth isn’t surprising. There are several substantial factions, of various sizes, in the GOP. They don’t want there to be a faction of conservative gay people in the GOP. It doesn’t matter. It exists & persists.
The bible thumpers are losing ground in the GOP, but the main wing of normal fiscal & agenda driven Republicans have historically just avoided the existence of gays altogether. It’s all a mixed bag & nowadays everyone has a voice & can be heard & wield power.
It’s important not to feel victimized when everyone has someone that doesn’t care for their existence. However; it is a balancing act to know when to let something slide or when to insist in equity. It’s also important to know when NOT to follow the party line or mainstream GOP when there are issues of discrimination on the table.
I wouldn’t describe my posts as “incendiary” so much as “Already seen it on Weasel Zippers.”
In answer to Jeff’s question, I am not a Republican, and that’s why “Look what some obscure Republican said about The Gheys” doesn’t interest me as a topic.
As to why I’m not a Republican, that would be a long, boring post no one would read, but the short version is: I think the USA is far, far worse off than the political class admits, our trajectory is set, and Republicans, frankly, don’t have the answer or the balls to act on it if they did.
The one thing I respect about Democrats is that they deliver for their base. The base wants Free [Stuff] From The Government and the Democrats deliver. Republicans haven’t passed a single conservative reform since the Contract With America in 1994.
Notice: I am here to float a turd in the punchbowl.
As a str8 conservative who is forced to vote Republican, I look upon gay conservatives as those who first believe in a limited national government which observes the Constitution as a blueprint and keeps itself to the basic functions of national security, the general infrastructure and is not engaged in the flippancy and miasma of social justice.
As such, we welcome gays, blacks, disabled, crippled, female, ugly, nerdy, bad breathed and the rest who hold the basic principles of limited government.
If the Log Cabin Republicans get out in front with their victim agenda, then to Hell with them.
My homophobic, xenophobic ire is irked when someone shows up telling me that his/her loyalty to conservative (classical liberal) principles is on hold if I use some term offensive to his/her particular victim status.
Meanwhile, I understand that the qualifier “gay” separates and identifies the specific sort of patriot being addressed.
In respect for that, I wrote to Dan before I ever made a comment on this site in order to ascertain if I would be sticking my nose into a site where I did not belong. He graciously assured me that my comments would be welcome.
One of the great strengths of this site is that it is not a fraternity house of gays doing their argot and throwing brickbats at those who amuse or offend them.
When the Progressive comes here all bloated with “feelings” and doing piety dances, they are confronted with demands for facts and they fairly quickly resort to name calling and simpering.
I have met a fair number of Log Cabin people and I alway home in on their agenda and make them state it and defend it. They seem to always resort to blabbering. I see no difference between a gay classical liberal and a str8 classical liberal. That is to say, gay or str8 has nothing whatsoever to do with the principles.
On the margin, I am delighted to be able to intercede, when necessary, for the common respect for my gay fellow travelers when I can. I say that in no proprietary sense, as I know my gay compatriots speak positively for me when they can.
The problem is that “gay conservative” has the connotation that one’s homosexuality trumps or receives higher consideration than one’s conservative values. Which, based on the political decisions of the LCRs and GOProud, has been borne out: GOProud was so adamant about supporting a pro-gay marriage candidate that they ended up supporting somebody who wasn’t even a Republican, rather defeating the purpose of being GOProud in the first place.
When I describe my political standpoint to people, it’s “classical liberal.” “Gay” or “homosexual” only comes up when people ask about my social/personal life, usually via questions about my relationship status. To me, be homosexual should not grant me any more consideration than it does others. If there is injustice committed against me, it is because my pocket is picked or my leg is broken, and the law looks the other way because of my sexual orientation. That is anti-gay discrimination, not refusing to codify an extra-legal agenda.
“The problem is that “gay conservative” has the connotation that one’s homosexuality trumps or receives higher consideration than one’s conservative values.” Exactly, Sean L. That’s what I discovered over the years about many of the “gay conservatives” on this blog. It was really distressing, and that’s why you’re such a breath of fresh air. Keep blowing!
I’m still around, too, just not commenting or blogging much these days, as I’ve got too little time to spare and too many other things going on. I keep thinking that maybe this week or this month will be the time when I get things under control and start blogging again regularly, but it hasn’t happened much lately.
As far as the question here about party affiliation, I’m officially registered as “non-partisan,” and always have been. I originally registered that way because back in my college days I thought of myself as a “moderate.” I’ve never voted for a Democrat for President, but was foolish enough to vote for a few for other offices. The last time I made that mistake was in 2004. I sure came to regret some of those votes!
Like others here, my perspective is more libertarian or “classical liberal” in orientation. I resisted the label “conservative” for many years, but time and experience has taught me that regardless of whether or not I call myself a conservative, I am effectively one: I can’t stand the left or “progressives,” I don’t believe in “modern liberalism,” and I think that so-called moderates or centrists (as I once considered myself) are only fooling themselves by thinking that they can find a way of compromising with leftists which will ever work.
Jeff, we just have to live with rejection at times. But your column does make a darn good point.
ILC — on the contrary, the “racist profiling” elephants were basically engaging in EXACTLY the same sort of discrimination as a woman who crosses to the other side of the street when she sees two 18-year-old black males in hoodies and baggy pants, but does not cross the street if she sees Bill Cosby and Morgan Freeman walking towards her in business-casual attire. The elephants had learned to distinguish the black Maasai tribe (dairy herdsmen who frequently hunt and kill wildlife, including elephants who compete with the tribe’s cows for grazing space) from the black Kamba tribe (grain/vegetable farmers who seldom or never kill wild animals).
And that kind of discrimination is very much desirable, even though it occasionally produces “false positives” (some black teen males in hoodies and baggy pants may actually be meek as lambs) and “false negatives” (rapists of all colors may sometimes dress respectably).
#6: Ignatius – I don’t think the TX GOP had to be baited into “acting stupidly”.
I don’t have much interest in LCR but presenting the media with another “look – see how Republicans/conservatives hate gays” story to low-information “moderate” voters is what they do… it’s like falling off a log. It’s the stupid party.
Personally, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with “incendiary” posts from V the K as long as there are some “minty-cool-gel” posts from Jeff (and others) to balance them.
As I’ve said before, some cultural problems are so complicated and entrenched that they need to be vigorously counterattacked with a Good Cop / Bad Cop / Ugly Crazy Cop strategy.
To give a simple practical example — in the case of HIV prevention, some individuals will be more responsive to “God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because the men were sinful fudgepackers,” while others will be more swayed by “Scientific data confirms that fudge-packing is at least 50 times more risky than kielbasa-smoking.” Whatever works to reduce HIV transmission via fudgepacking, works.
P.S. Which is just my way of admitting that I’m secretly glad that ND30 is here, even though I’ve teased him in the past for sounding like an “ELIZA-bot.”
So, I’m like Scorchin’ Habanero Doritos and Jeff is like Cool Ranch Doritos.
I swear to Ra I’m not high.
I’ll go with that!
And V, I meant it when I said you’re awesome. Not kidding a bit…the other night I planned a post (in my head while waiting for dinner) where I would go into your awesomeness, at length.
@ Seane-Anna: I’m not sure it’s entirely fair to some of the other guys on here to call me a truer conservative than them simply because I am less inclined to advocate or oppose something from a gay perspective. I’ve never actually expressed my views on gay politics in full, so I think this may be as good of an opportunity as any:
I support legal recognition of same-sex relationships and benefits for them; however, I think “marriage” is too volatile a term and brings government too far into the sphere of religion, so I favor civil unions for all couples, which can be validated by clerics in good standing with their religion’s governing body.
I don’t see myself adopting kids or getting a surrogate, simply because I don’t see myself as a father type and I think that one person to watch out for will be enough for me. However, I don’t rule out the possibility that same-sex couples can be capable parents based on evidence; at the same time, I think all kids should be entitled to a father and mother if they want them.
I do not support sexuality conversion therapy, but I do think that many gay people could stand to take a good long look at themselves in the mirror and not use their homosexuality as a shield to avoid addressing their very obvious personal demons.
I don’t think gays need a place of honor in society, but I do think that some people irrationally refuse to accept the support of gay people who are genuinely aligned with their agenda, without ulterior motive.
Does that clear things up, Seane-Anna?
@ilovecapitalism actually the racist elephant story isn’t racist both tribes are black but wear different style cloths. The elephants know which tribe is worse.
Sean L. at #22, yes, that clears things up. I do take issue with a couple of things you said. First, children shouldn’t have a father and a mother simply if they want them; children NEED a father and a mother to have the best chance of becoming healthy, decent, and flourishing adults. Yes, single parents and gays can raise children well but the data shows that, all things being equal, children do best when they’re raised in normal, traditional, families.
Second, when it comes to gay relationships, I’m fed up with the whole “civil unions” bit. To me, that’s just an Orwellian linguistic trick to get people to support gay marriage by calling it something else. It’s not gay marriage, it’s a civil union. Ugh! Newsflash: marriage IS a civil union! It’s not what happens in a church, before a preacher, that makes people legally married; it’s the marriage license required by the state. Without that CIVIL document, you can exchange a thousand vows in church and still not be legally wed. So just come out and say you want gay marriage and shelve Orwell.
And if a civil union really is different from and less than, a marriage, I don’t think EVERYONE must have their relationship reduced to the lowest common denominator just so a tiny sex group can feel affirmed.