The words just don't seem to go together, do they? "Gay" and "Republican". It's like oil and water, black and white, Muslim and Jew. It sounds like a recipe for self-loathing. Of course, I recognize that the beliefs and philosophies of gays and lesbians can't be pigeon-holed simply because of their lifestyle. Even so, being a gay Republican would certainly seem to run counter to one's own interests.
If the Log Cabin Republicans hope to maintain ANY credibility, there is no way that they can endorse George W. Bush. This occupant of the White House wants second-class citizen status for gays and lesbians to be enshrined in the Constitution. How long before they're all forced to wear pink triangles?
Patrick Guerriero, executive director of conservative gay rights group Log Cabin Republicans, has been getting asked one particularly humorous question a lot these days: "So who are you going to vote for? John Kerry or Ralph Nader?" After all, he and his group of gay Republicans have seemingly been hung out to dry by the Bush administration and its backers in Congress.... Still, Guerriero and his fellow gay conservatives have been left feeling beleaguered by all the antigay rhetoric that surrounded the Senate debate. "I do a lot of soul-searching," Guerriero admitted. "Our membership is ticked off."
Mind you, that does not mean Guerriero is going to leave his Log Cabin post or the Republican Party. Growing up in a middle-class Boston suburb, he feared that his sexual orientation would thwart his political ambitions, especially as a budding young Republican. But unlike generations of gay and lesbian conservatives before him, he has refused to stay in the closet and has been successful. However, he is furious that the GOP – of which he and others have remained loyal to for so long – seems to be completely shunning gay men and lesbians while catering to a far-right agenda in which advocating the opposition of gay rights has become a favored means for raising campaign funds.
Log Cabin Republicans may share the overall Conservative bent of the GOP. What many seem not to realize (or have chosen to gloss over), though, is that supporting and working for the GOP is tantamount to sleeping with the enemy (no pun intended). Conservative, Red-Meat Republicans HATE homosexuals and their lifestyle (and no, I don't think it is possible to overstate this point). Supporting the GOP amounts to working for your own political and social marginalization. It seems a recipe for self-loathing.
I certainly don't expect a Log Cabin Republican to abandon their Conservative beliefs, but does it make sense to work to elect a man who is sworn to reducing gays and lesbians to second-class citizens? If there is any logic in play here, it's lost on me.
Can I play -- "Thinking" and "Liberal".
"Sober" and "Kennedy"
OK, Greg...how about "Compassionate" and "Conservative"?? "Self-Absorbed" and "Republican"??
How about not assuming that large groups of American's "hate Homosexual's and their lifestyle" simply because of their party affiliation??
This post seems to advise gay people to hate Bush and vote Dem based only on issues related to gay acceptance in society.
"...being a gay Republican would certainly seem to run counter to one's own interests."
I think this statement exhibits one of two things, northstar doesn't appreciate that gay people are multifaceted human beings, or simply wishes to misinform them in another attempt to gain a vote for Kerry by any means possible. The post as a whole is emotionally based, pseudo factual political rhetoric, and is far from intellectual in my opinion.
According to a recent ABC News poll 29% of republicans support same sex adoption while 30% of democrats are against it. Overall, opposition to gay parenting has decreased 23 percentage points since a similar poll taken in 1994. Regardless of political affiliation, the number of Americans who support same sex parenting now outnumber those who do not.
This establishes a clear trend that has gained irreversible momentum. However, even if an extremely supportive president were elected in the next 10 years, it is unlikely the he or she could enact federal laws that support same sex marriage and parenting. Nor is it likely that measures similar to the bone-headed attempt at a constitutional amendment (for or against) will ever be successful. Legislation will follow societal acceptance of homosexuality, not create it.
BTW, how does Kerry stand on gay issues today? Will he pull a Clinton, and solicit gay support then abandon them after the election? Gays who voted for Bush knew his views, and knew what they were getting. With Kerry, who can be sure?
Poll like this are good news for gay Americans from both parties. It means that they need not cast their presidential vote based on a single issue, and can take a more holistic and intellectual approach to the decision. It means that they need fall for emotionally based attempts to swindle their vote by misinforming them.
Supporting the GOP amounts to working for your own political and social marginalization. It seems a recipe for self-loathing.
I look forward to the day when a person's sexuality does not define their whole being, and gays are not subjected to disrespectful and exploitive statements like the one above.
oops! Above, I meant to type:
It means that they need not fall for emotionally based attempts to swindle their vote by misinforming them.
Funny, I'm not aware of having ever met a Republican who hates homosexuals. I've met a number who oppose gay adoption and gay marriage (actually, I am one of those), as well as some who want to keep sodomy illegal (I disagree with Lawrence v. Texas, but for the reasons outlined by Scalia and Thomas in their dissents, not because I support banning the practice).
I even know a number who believe that homosexuals will burn in hell for their sins (I agree with their reading of scripture on the sinfulness of homosexual acts, but respectfully submit that I don't presume to know the extent of God's mercy for any individual or group).
But hatred for homosexuals, or depriving them of any right actually protected under the Constitution? Nope, I cannot think of a single one I've met who would do those things. But then again, I only have 25 years of GOP activism on which to judge, so I could be wrong.