Not fast enough, in my own opinion, but there seems to be real change occurring in the GOP. Thirty-five Republicans voted in favor of adding gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to current hate crimes legislation. Just a short time ago, nearly none of them would have touched that issue, and I think Log Cabon Republican president Patrick Sammon has it right:
“You have folks who are looking ahead to 2008 and they see the landscape is going to be very difficult and they need to reach out to moderate voters,” he said. “This is one issue to do that on.”
Clyde Wilcox, a Georgetown University government professor, agreed.
“This helps them at election time,” he said. “It’s a minimal kind of support, but it’s still an issue that resonates in American culture.”
What caused that change in American culture, I would submit, is not using blanket statements to condemn every Republican for the faults of the decided majority. It was gay people of all stripes who took a more tactful approach, whether it was coming out to more conservative friends, or by joining groups like Log Cabin Republicans. As much as you might think “gay Republican” is an oximoron (or simply moronic), you can’t deny that there’s been a significant political change in the attitudes of Republicans towards them.
Billy K
Yeah, they eventually decided slavery wasn’t the BEST thing ever, too.
Wilfred
That seems pretty nutty to me. It is the decided majority that has pursued a criminal war, stepped on the constitution and made human surfing a matter of taste rather than morality. A quick refresher course in Thoreau might come in handy here but just to paraphrase, any alignment at all with THAT majority is itself criminality.
demimondian
Sorry, Michael, but no. The thing which changed the Republican minds was simple and straightforward: they discovered that failing to back ENDA would get them attacked by Democratic opponents, to whom they would lose.
Gay Republican are neither oxymoronic nor moronic — they’re merely freeloaders on the hard work done by the real activists.
The Other Steve
If they’re afraid of losing an election… how exactly did voting for and joining them make them afraid?
Gay Republicans are like battered wives thinking if they are more loving their husband won’t beat them.
Chuck Butcher
Well Michael, my first reaction was a belly laugh, but there is something in your dedication to principle and a desire to see reform in “your” Party that is admirable. It is also essential if the Rs are not to spend a lot of time as only wingnuts out of the debate. A one Party system is dangerous, proven over the recent past, and I don’t want to see it, even though I’m well left of most of the Democratic Party.
But, here’s the laugh, if you think any of this means anything at this time, you’re engaging in wishful thinking. The hard right Congressmen aren’t in danger and they won’t go along, and the middle R folks are not only in danger, they’re probably gone leaving you know who. The fight you’re engaged in is going to be measured in decades in that Party. Sure, I’ll wish you luck, I’ll also wish you a lot of patience.
Incertus (Brian)
If the Republican party is becoming more gay-friendly–and I’d say they have a lot farther to go before they can call themselves that–then it’s because they’ve been slapped in the head hard enough to realize that they can’t continue to narrow their base and still win elections. They have to compromise on something.
I also think that this particular case has more to do with the Republican caucus being out of power, and thereby not having anything to threaten moderate members with. When the Hammer was in charge, he could bash his caucus with relative impunity. Boehner can’t do that.
4tehlulz
When a Republican presidential candidate can be openly gay friendly, then I’ll believe it.
And by openly gay friendly, I mean will go on the record and sign ENDA, support gay marriage, and not kiss the asses of Pat Robertson et al.
JGabriel
Another factor that may have changed the mind of some Republicans (35 is clearly not the majority of them) is how utterly hypocritical they look everytime another closeted gay Republican gets caught soliciting sex in a public restroom or found dead in two wetsuits with a dildo up his ass.
By dropping the gay-hate, they at least stand a chance of ameliorating the hypocrisy charge, if nothing else. Still, 35 Republicans (about 1 out of 6) is not enough to signal a shift in the party’s stance — at best, it’s a step forward. Granted, it might presage a real shift further down the line, which would be: a good thing. But 15% is not a lot to crow about.
Dennis-SGMM
Dennis-SGMM
oops! forgot to close a tag.
jake
So, you’re saying that when Joe Schmoe comes out to his conservative friend that somehow resonates through the Republican Hive Mind up to the level of the GOP in the US Congress?
Pity they aren’t so sharp at picking up on the GET US OUT OF IRAQ, signals people of all stripes have been beaming. And I guess not enough Republican voters know nice, non-hostile kids or SCHIP funding might have passed.
Is there a Wookies on Endor tag for this blog?
greg
Sorry but no. The proof will be in the party platform. Will it advocate equality for all Americans? That not all Republicans are complete wingnuts doesn’t mean the direction of the party as a whole is changing any time soon.
Jamesaust
“they’re merely freeloaders on the hard work done by the real activists.”
ROFL
Yes, “activists” working with the Democratic Party (a/k/a, the Democratic machine) have accomplished SO much on these issues – whenever self-immolation wasn’t required for the betterment of the Democratic Party: 99.9% of the time.
> for the GOP: disgust
> for Dems: contempt
Dug Jay
While separated from his wife, Rudy Guiliani roomed with an openly gay couple in NYC, and made no secret of it.
RSA
Democrats are not without sin in the area of gay-bashing, but at least they don’t have it written into their party platforms the way Republicans do. I’ll believe that progress is being made in attitudes, rather than simply in political advantage, when Republican politicians start objecting to gay-bashing on the part of their Republican colleagues.
JL
The Republicans know that they can’t win with 30% of the vote so they are trying pretending to be more open. Who is actually gonna buy that change?
SF Bear
Feh.
I’m not buying it. Republicans are dinosaurs who need to be dragged into the 21st century.
Believe me, it was no solicitous “politeness” that brought them around. It’s that voters under 40 won’t vote for bigots like they used to.
No kudos to Republicans for acting like humans (this time).
Tayi
Republican tolerance for homosexuals is nothing but a strategy to get votes. Its the culture at large that’s changed, and for that you can thank radical activists, dirty hippies, the liberal media, pretty much everyone BUT Republicans.
Jason in MO
Sorry Mike, no deal. As a gay man I belong to a group of people that leading Republicans have compared to pedophiles (this enrages me most of all), thinks that gays are demoniacally possessed, if not possessed than mentally ill, that thinks gay sexual inclination is no different than those who are into bestiality, or has compared homosexuality to shoplifting, etc.
My cynical side thinks those 35 Republicans that voted for gay rights feel that they can do so because they have found a new hated minorities to blame all of societies problems on, Mexicans and Muslims.
Philosophically I consider myself somewhat conservative. But after the 1993 gays in the military imbroglio I swore I would never vote for a party that at its core hates me for what I am.
If you think the Republicans are ready to accept gays I invite you to look at the Ten most viewed pages on Conservapedia.
jake
[Gasp!] You mean those Party of Lincoln ads aimed at African-Americans aren’t a sincere reflection of GOP beliefs?
Shocking.
In a similar vein, I look forward to watching the GOP do their tight-rope act with Latino voters. “Just ‘cos we whipped the base into a Hispanic Hating Frenzy doesn’t mean we’re not your friends!”
Stupid fuckers.
jcricket
Yeah, while he was mayor of NY, pro-choice, pro-gun-control and not opposed to raising taxes. Now that he’s running for President on the Republican ticket he’s claiming to be opposed to all that stuff, and will gladly support a federal ban on gay marriage as soon as the states get too uppity (paraphrasing here).
I think it’s tactically commendable that 35 Republicans risked losing a teensy bit of support from their right-wing voters to support ENDA. Everyone should support ENDA.
But I have no doubt that the Republican party won’t trend towards supporting gay rights as a party platform until 30 years from now, if ever. The true “libertarian” (government out of private lives) leanings of the Republican party are long gone. But the reality is (as many have pointed out) that most of these Rs are the ones that fear they are out of touch with their increasingly Democratic districts, not because the Republican party has changed in any real way (witness Dave Reichart in Washington).
I think you can look at the embrace of the Southern strategy and Republican attitudes towards racial minorities (now) for how Republicans and gays will interact in the future. There will be no more outright homophobia, because it will be social/political suicide. No one will openly oppose gay marriage anymore (like no one campaigns on making interracial marriage illegal). But the homophobia will be there, right under the surface, and there will be plenty of crowing about how “diversity” is reverse heterosexism (or whatever).
Republicans will bitch and moan about how the gays don’t vote for them because Republicans do one thing or another that gays should like, but will continue not understanding why they’ve lost one more “minority” as a voting bloc, forever.
Michael – Republicans aren’t coming back. Keep up the fight, because it benefits gays, but your party won’t be your friend when it really matters.
Psycheout
Although the homo agenda is an abomination, I’m actually pleased as punch about this. Now more queer folk can at last be free from slavery to the Democrat party.
Homos, you are free at last! Vote Republican, because we’ve got a big tent. Unlike those fascist dems who think they own the fairies and the blacks.
I say it’s about time these folk have some freedom of choice. Free at last, free at last, thank G-d Almighty you are free at last! Eat it, libs. Your ownership of segments of society is over. Good post, Mike.
And although I disagree with the Log Cabin Republicans on most issues, at least they remind people that the GOP is the party of Lincoln. The DemocRAT party is the party of Carter. Think about it.
Psycheout
Why can’t you lefties show a little tolerance? Hypocrites to the core. You can’t help it though. It’s who you are. Why do hate gay people so much? Homophobe! HATE CRIME!!!
stickler
Jcricket gets it:
Even if many “libertarian” Republicans start mouthing nice-sounding words toward gays, Mexicans, medical marijuana users, death-with-dignity advocates … it means nothing. Those pretty words are rarely backed with deeds.
And can’t be. Because the GOP decided to embrace the Confederate Cracker vote, in hopes of sewing up the Solid South. That they’ve (more or less) done — but at a price. The GOP is fast becoming a freakish anomaly on the Pacific Coast, the Northeast, and even Montana (!) has elected Democrats for Senator and Governor. The panty-sniffing moral crap that sells so well in Texas and Mississippi just drives Westerners away.
But if the GOP were really to try to embrace the gay vote (HAhaHAhaHA!), they’d lose the cracker vote in Dixie.
Faustian bargain, indeed. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of Baptist bastard blowhards.
jake
Psycheout, may I say that in the spirit of Thanksgiving we’d all be intensely grateful if you’d go fuck yourself.
demimondian
Psicko, you know, I can’t tell you how much it means to have you here. Paul L. is sincere, but limited by being reality-based — even if his view of reality and mine don’t always agree.
You remind me of why I keep fighting. I can’t ignore the danger that false Christians like you pose to the souls of other. So, once again, I give thanks for your existence; you remind me that evil is everywhere.
Ted
Michael, I’m sorry. You’re being naive.
I’m sympathetic to gay conservatives who honestly believe in ‘conservative’ principles (of yesteryear’s conservatism, not the heinous monster of today). But for gays to align up with a party that has their demonization built loudly right into its official party platform, and has institutionalized demonization and scapegoating absolutely everywhere within its ranks, because they want their taxes lowered or whatever, is a bit like a Jewish Nazi explaining that yes, they know they’re hated by their party, but they really like the Nazi ideas on crime reduction and defense policy.
If you think that analogy is hyperbole, just go back and read some of those Conservapedia articles on homosexuality again. Then compare them to Nazi tracts on those “diseased” Jews and their threat to children and civilization.
Ted
And folks, Psycheout is a parody who is motivated by provocation. Unless there really are people left in the US with any education at all or an IQ above 80 that think the sun goes around the earth. If you’re willing to believe that about Psycheout, then fine. Not a parody.
demimondian
I’ve exchanged email with Psicko. If he’s a spoof, he’s a very, very sincere one.
(FWIW it wasn’t Psicko who posted the infamous heliocentrism post. It was “sisyphus”. If it weren’t for Psicko, I’d be completely willing to believe that sisyphus was a fake.)
wasabi gasp
Hey! Republicans are so worried about all their fucked up shit finally catching up and costing them every branch of government in the next election that they’re willing to not consider you deviant scum anymore. Congratulations! Good for you!
Psycheout
Ted is right. Republicans really love them gay folk’s votes. We really do.
capelza
If anyone doubts that there are wingers really like Psycheout..peruse ‘Conservapedia”…you can’t make that stuff up. Well, you can, but you know what I mean.
Michael, like Chuck I am sympatheitc to someone who is loyal to the party that used have people like Mark Hatfield and other sincere people in it. But that party left the building a number of years ago.
Oh, speaking of Chuck..was it you I was talking about elk hunting with? The husabnd got a really nice big one over north of John Day. Very tasty and the freezers are full. We are thankful…
Konrad
This dovetails quite nicely into the previous thread. I, personally, covet women, but this is not by my design, I simply do. So, too, I imagine gay folk – they simply covet those of the same sex. This also, I imagine, extends to those whom covet children. How you deal with that urge is paramount and determines how society shall deal with you.
I imagine the republicans, after having so many gay folk in their party outed, are starting to realize that it just isn’t so bad, it isn’t one’s choice, to be gay. How you deal with it, though, seems to be rising to a level of public consciousness, both dem and repub. Pedophiles, well, they’ve got to simply suppress the urge…or else!!!
Ted
If he’s not a parody, he certainly likes to avoid having a discussion with us about the “Heliocentrism is an atheist dogma” essay on his Blogs4Brownback blog (now Blogs4Conservatives).
What’s the matter, Psycho? Don’t feel you can defend that one on its merits?
Ted
Yeah, I know. But anyone who continues to blog with someone that profoundly mentally retarded or willfully ignorant of basic second grade science needs deserves whatever stupid-by-association treatment they get.
dr. luba
Interesting thing I found while strolling around the net: the terms most commonly searched for on Conservapedia.
Really, is the entire right in the closet?
Psycheout
Ted, I will gladly discuss anything that I have written with you. Calling me chicken won’t change the fact that my good friend Sisyphus wrote the piece you are interested in debating. He’s the science expert, not me.
In any case, it is usually best to confront the author of a post about its contents. Should I ask demimondian to explain one of your stupid comments? Probably not. And it would never occur to me to ask him to.
It’s amazing how difficult logic is to the mind of a liberal.
jcricket
I actually worked with one of the guys in charge of the Log Cabin Republicans in WA state (not kidding). He was much like Sullivan – anti-abortion, anti-tax, anti-government healthcare.
And those things trumped any hatred of his very being (e.g. who he could love, where he could live, whether he could adopt, what jobs he could have).
How he lived with that, I’ll never know. He just seemed to delight in the idea that no one “deserved” his vote just by being gay-friendly.
Which I would get, if the two parties were, I dunno, fairly diverse on the issue of homosexuality. But they’re not, and increasingly not. Dems may have some bad “DOMA” votes to live-down, but they’re moving the right direction on every issue that matters regarding gay rights (and women’s rights, minority rights, separation of church and state, etc.). Republicans want to re-criminalize sodomy and permanently ban gay marriage and adoption.
Fine – if you’re a gay “libertarian”, don’t vote Dem. But voting Republican is just ridiculous.
Or should I say “RIDICULLOOOOOUSS”!
Jody
This.
THIS.
Nellcote
“As much as you might think “gay Republican” is an oximoron (or simply moronic), you can’t deny that there’s been a significant political change in the attitudes of Republicans towards them.”
Yeah sure, get back to me after Condi finally comes out of the closet.
Johnny Pez
So, does this mean we have to stop making “wide stance” jokes?
Spence
Yeah, it’s like those polite black folks that just asked for their rights in such sweet dulcet tones that whites just freed them at last…
You know how you end bigotry? You make the bigots suffer for practicing it. Short of that, you don’t.
jcricket
BTW – I need to comment on the quote from the Log Cabin Republican president.
You’re fucking smoking crack if you think Republicans are going to run to the middle in 2008. Seems most of the party wants to run farther to the right (witness all the Presidental candidate pandering to Dobson, et. al.). The only exceptions are the few Republican moderates in basically Democratic counties, who usually attempt to pretend their not Republicans by not commenting on their record (Dino Rossi, Dave Reichart). Republicans seem to believe 2006’s results mean they weren’t conservative enough.
Log Cabin Republicans are a joke and are fooling themselves if they think they’re accomplishing anything. If you really want change, force the Libertarian party to live up to their ideals on social issues.
mclaren
We would expect this. After all, the entire Republican party is gay. If they keep on condemning gays, who would they have left to run for office?
Remember that GOP stands for “Gay Older Pedophile.”
Tsulagi
Hey, lighten up a little. Anyone who posts a photo on his blog of a Goth nun sucking a crucifix between her breasts can’t be ALL bad. lol
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
Psycheout
I know Johnny Pez was joking here, but I think he inadvertantly hits on a central point.
Don’t you lefties think that by constantly squealing with glee everytime a gay Republican is “outed” that you are basically giving queer America the middle finger?
No wonder why they’re running from the Democrat party in horror. You guys preach tolerance, but you’re the first ones to bray when gays are outed, whether it’s “wide stance” or “wetsuits and dildos.”
Think about that over your Thanksgiving holiday, which I do hope you all enjoy. Happy Thanksgiving!
Johnny Pez
No.
(This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions.)
Dennis-SGMM
We get a touch of shadenfreude when a gay Republican is outed or some fundie is caught in a compromising position because of the irony of it. These are usually people who bray that homosexuality can be cured – or that it’s an abomination, vote against gay rights and generally behave like close-minded bigots.
Oops, sorry: I forgot that something’s ironic to a conservative is like trying to explain water to a goldfish.
rachel
No, that was the Democrats.
Randolph Fritz
Um, I think Stonewall, which was a protest against police abuses and not at all tactful, had something to do with it. MLK knew it: if you wait, and don’t even speak up, they’ll leave you in the closet forever, except when they open the door to taser you.
Psycheout
I thought I said that. And I bet gay people think it’s hilarious when you make wide stance and wet suit jokes. Yee-haw, that’s some great comedy.
And I’ll bet some of your best friends are gay too, huh? It’s homophobes like you that put the ick back in the Democratick party.
That’s why Mike’s post is right on the money.
Psycheout
If I was gay I’d certainly vote for Republicans. At least they don’t pretend to be your buddy and then make jokes about gay people who are outed or found dead.
Psycheout
More tolerance from the left.
Pb
35 Republicans in the House ain’t much… now tell me with a straight face what the electoral prospects of those 35 look like for 2008, and then tell me how big a deal this is again, ok…
FYI: The GOP kept playing the gay card because it had been a more effective wedge issue to use against Liberals–but now they’ve overplayed their hand, so they’re backing off somewhat, got it?
Ted
If he/she and I shared a blog, just the two of us, it wouldn’t be that odd to do so.
Psycheout, what is your opinion about the validity and scientific veracity of the essay on your blog titled, “Heliocentrism is an atheist dogma”? We’d like to know if you agree with its conclusions.
Ranger3
Younger Republicans are turned off by homophobia. It’s because they have gay friends and don’t like seeing their buddies demonized. If people knew more Iraqis, then the Iraq War would have never happened.
Older Republicans won’t change, unless they have a gay daughter or something. But they will die off. When that happens (in 20 years or so), the GOP will ditch the anti-gay stuff for good.
wasabi gasp
I wouldn’t to pretend to be your buddy if you died double-wrapped in wetsuits with a dildo in your pooper, either.
Zuzu
What a dishonest post. The fact that you left out rest of it – “because of the irony of it” – proves you know you’re being dishonest.
People do tend to mock hypocrites, and gay hypocrites are no exception.
Irony lessons indeed.
Chuck Butcher
Yes Capelza that was me, congrats. There are some beauties in that country.
OxyCon
“GOP Attitudes Towards Gays Changing”
You mean they no longer want to publicly stone them to death any longer?
jake
*Some restrictions apply. See Dick Cheney and Alan Keyes for more details.
Peter Johnson
Republicans have never been homophobic. I feel sorry for people who lack the willpower to move past the homosexual lifestyle. But I don’t hate them or demonize them. If you actually polled Republicans, instead of just reciting whatever craziness you just heard on the 700 Club, you’d see most feel about the same as I do.
CDB
Ya, and the creationists folded and didn’t refocus on ID either.
CDB
Al quaida has softened it’s stance on women too. arn’t they following the librul dialog closely?
Psycheout
Zifnab, I’m arguing in good faith. Why can’t you?
And, Teddy, it’s “Heliocentrism Is An Atheist DOCTRINE” not “dogma.” When you can’t even get the basic facts right, what value would explaining anything to you have? None.
I even have a clock on my wall to serve as a daily reminder. And it keeps perfect time. I think it’s a perfect gift for CHRISTmas. Make a statement without saying a word.
Psycheout
What Peter Johnson said. And Pat Robertson is dead to me ever since he endorsed RINO Rudy.
Ted
Hey Petey. Please demonstrate this willpower and “move past” the heterosexual “lifestyle”. Let me know how well that works out for ya, you idiotic thumper.
jake
Ah fuck, the night and this thread is complete. Peter Hugh Johnson and Psycheout entertaining us with a brilliant display of bullshit and never a mention of that dream they both had when they were lads. The one where they were drowning and David Cassidy came to rescue them and suddenly the water turned to milk and when they woke up their jammies were all sticky.
But where would the Republican Party be without poor bastards like them squatting in the mothballs and poring GQ with a flashlight?
Ted
Wow. You’re right. You definitely got me there. It completely destroys what I asked. Your genius humbles me.
So which is it? Do you agree with your blog-partner’s 15th century ideas about astronomy? Because it would be really funny if you did. Actually, it’s really funny that he/she is your blog-partner.
Matt
Psycheout is GOP4ME, right? That blog of his can’t be serious.
scarshapedstar
Funny how having half of their caucus forced out of the closet will lead a party to admit that, okay, maybe gays aren’t all “dung-eating dogs”.
Psycheout
Again with the fag jokes. You guys really hate gay people don’t you?
Psycheout
I’ve seen GOP4ME over at Blogs for Bush in the past, but haven’t seen him lately at Blogs for Victo(r)y. He is not me. Why do you ask?
Johnny Pez
No, no, it’s not the gay, it’s the hypocrisy. We’d react the same way if Tancredo turned out to be an illegal alien, or Huckabee turned out to be descended from apes.
Psycheout
So then you’d call Tancredo a “wetback” and Huck “monkey boy?”
I mean really, “wide stance” is okay with you? That’s like “ha ha” funny?
Michael D.
Peter Johnson: I bet you’re REALLY hot!
jake
You’re the one using the f- word, shithead. I’m sure it makes you feel all hetero and stuff but it won’t stop you getting a woody when you see Brad Pitt. Have you worn out your first copy of People’s Sexiest Men Alive magazine yet?
Michael D.
I think it’s obvious to anyone who reads anything I write that I feel no particular loyalty to “the party.” If anything, the opposite is true these days. What I do support is changing peoples’ minds. And when a member of a party that’s been traditionally hostile to gays decides to support us even on one issue, then I’m going to write about that because it is important, and the Rep. deserves kudos.
Wasn’t it just a couple years ago that you all were tremendously hostile to John’s point of view on the Bush Administration and the war? Like many, many people, including myself, his mind was changed. And people should be thankful for that. You did your job. You convinced someone on the other side to support you. That’s how it works. If you still demonized all the former war supporters, and lumped them in with all those who still support anything this administration does, then I think you would be doing everyone a disservice. Likewise, if I lump Republicans who’ve changed their mind on certain gay issues in with the rest of them, I’d doubt we’d get as far ahead as we are now.
Like it or not, Republicans are still going to hold a sizeable number of seats in the House and Senate after the next election. It doesn’t hurt to acknowledge and say thank you to the ones who are even a tiny bit more progressive than their counterparts.
Yet none of the leading Democratic candidates will go on record supporting marriage. Why the double standard?
I’m grateful that most, if not all Democrats supported ENDA. But I also know the backstory. Protections for transsexuals had to be removed to get that support.
There is plenty of stupidity on both sides of the aisle. I think it’s just important to acknowledge that stupidity. But also, I think it’s even more important to acknowledge the people who are willing to go outside what would normally be considered their comfort zone and support something that is unpopular because they know it’s right.
And it doesn’t matter to me what party that person belongs to.
jake
Michael you’re arguing against yourself. People were incredibly hostile to John when he supported the war and John changed his mind about the war (I don’t know how much of a connection you can make between the two events or how much of it was an earnest attempt to change John’s mind). But when you wrote your post you suggested the way to win people over was essentially to be nice to them and they would see gays and lesbians weren’t out to hump them to death and change their minds. In one instance hostility leads to a change of opinion and in the other you can’t get a change of opinion until you stop being hostile. Which is it?
Anyway, if anyone wants to make nice to Psycheout and Peter Hugh Johnson, have at it.
jake
O.T. p.s. Aaaiee! Activist Governors!
Heh.
Andrew
Laugh-a while you can, monkey-boy.
Michael D.
That’s not what I said at all. Where in my post did I say or even suggest that? I think what I implied was that you should be nice to the people who support you, and to work to get more support from the people who don’t.
ThymeZone
Psycheout … can you send me a picture?
I find myself thinking of you all the time.
p.lukasiak
Michael, I’m sorry. You’re being naive
Naive? How about deliberately obtuse?
The fact is that the only “progress” being made concerning gays and Republicans is that we’re got rid of a whole slew of Republicans last year.
If he bothered to read the article he linked to, he would find that not only is employment non-discrimination for gays approved by the vast majority of Americans, 77% of Republicans feel that wasy… including 67% of “social conservatives.” The numbers are so lopsided that its nearly inconceivable that any GOP incumbent would be endangered by a vote for ENDA…. yet 5/6 of them voted against it.
Now, the other explanation of this is bigotry — either profound homophobia or a willingness to use homophobia against any Democratic opponent as part of an overall “too liberal” campaign strategy.
As for the idea of progress, what Mike D doesn’t tell you is that the GOP tried to kill the bill by sending it back to committee, only EIGHT Republicans voted against that move…
(25 Democrats voted against the ENDA bill itself — but seven of those votes were from very strong supporters of gay rights who were protesting the lack of protections for transgendered people in the bill.)
“Progress” is the fact that only about 5% of Democrats oppose extending non-discrimination rights to gays. The only way we can expect “progress” from the GOP is to get the legislation into law, and wait 20 years.
It took about 20 years after the passage of non-discrimination laws concerning race and gender became so obvious that advocating such discrimination was pretty much disqualified you from consideration for public office. Anyone who voted against ENDA this time isn’t ever going to be convinced that its something they should support — and the rest of the country will either replace them, or convince them to keep their mouths shut so they don’t disclose their idiotic bigotry.
Richard Bottoms
We don’t need your vote to win.
All we need is our 48% solid Democratic vote and 3% of the Independents. Anyone fool enough to continue to vote for the GOP can get lost.
jcricket
Those are both actually good examples of what happens when powerful Republicans have gay people close to them.
Alan Keyes basically disowned his daughter.
Cheney certainly didn’t, but he absolutely continues to support anti-gay legislation, including a federal ban on marriage. He could have a powerful effect on his party if, like the Republican mayor of San Diego (?), he said, “After realizing what kind of effect this would have on my own family, I realized I couldn’t support enshrining discrimination into law – and preventing people I love from being with the people they love”.
But he didn’t. He brushed it aside and pretended all questions about his family were “beyond the pale”.
Michael D.
Richard Bottoms
How’s not having Republican support working out for ya so far?
jcricket
Michael – The difference here is that you’re not just arguing it was good some Republicans supported ENDA, but that Republican attitudes towards gays were changing.
I would argue that the former (support) is a good thing, but that attitudes aren’t changing.
Demcrats are to be chided for failing to support gay marriage – the waffling around on the issue is pathetic. But Democrats will change their issues decades before Republicans ever do. I expect it to be much like interracial marriage, which was still illegal in 18 states (and in fact opposed by a near plurality of citizens) when the Supreme Court rules that bans against interracial marriage were unconstitutional.
Again, John gets more support here because he is decidedly not a Republican anymore. He may still call himself a conservative or libertarian (small L), but he is not a Republican.
You claim you have no particular loyalty to the party, but you still clearly believe it can be “changed from within”, where most of us (including John) no longer believe that.
I think it’s unfortunately true that the only thing that will force Republicans to change is electoral losses. In fact, most of us have argued that’s exactly what happened here. Republicans in Democratic districts voted for ENDA because they feared losing.
While that’s not a bad result, it is not a change in Republican politics.
p.lukasiak
“Progress” isn’t when people are finally dragged kicking and screaming toward acknowledging objective reality. Progress happens when rational people are presented with compelling arguments change their minds on the issue.
“Progress” happens because people act on compelling but incomplete information. It the difference between taking steps to avoid getting your laptop wet when it looks like it gonna rain even though it might not, rather than waiting for a downpour and dealing with the consequences of a wet laptop.
jake
Hmmm…
Let’s check with our friend Dictionary.com, shall we? If I enter Suggest and look down at the list of synonyms.
So, you’ve twice suggested/implied that being nicer/tactful/less hostile (however you want to put it) is the way to win people over to a particular side.
Again, if we accept that people chewing John out when he supported the war lead to John not supporting the war, how does that fit with your initial argument, theory, hypothesis (whatever you want to call it)?
Pb
Michael D.,
It’s the polling, for one. Remember that link I cited earlier? Majority support for gay marriage only exists amongst the actual Liberals out there, and they are not a majority in the Democratic party.
jake
Or put another way, how’s the GOP’s alliance with the peeping-cons, war-chickens, scofflaws and megalithic corporations working out for them?
People are really enthusiastic about the endless war in Iraq, a clapped out economy, cutting funds for social assistance programs, corruption and attempts to shove Christianity (as interpreted by Fuckus on the Family) down their throats, ain’t they? Wheee!
Please, by all means. Continue to do what you can to convince the Republican Party that everything is hunky dory provided a few of their number toss out a crumb of kindness now and then. The sooner the Elephant is squashed by it’s own platform the sooner we can get a second functioning party up and running.
Thanks!
Richard Bottoms
Pretty damn good once we drop kick your behinds to Pluto in the 2008 general election.
Heh.
Ted
Here’s Michael being naive about this again. Look at the damn voting records of those 35 or whatever number Republicans on gay issues in the House you’re so excited about getting on board ENDA. We don’t even need to bother, do we? If anyone wants to look them up, I’m sure the Human Rights Campaign has it all documented, and I’m sure it would reveal the real motive of those republicans: fear of losing their seat, and political expediency. Jumping on the already winning bandwagon on a particular bill that is generally approved of by the population is not support. It’s not wanting to stick out as a reminder of why the country is so disgusted with the GOP at the moment.
If this bill were within 35 votes of being scuttled, are you honestly going to tell me the GOP Whip wouldn’t successfully get them back in line?
Please.
Zifnab
Before anyone starts waxing poetic about the newfound revelation of attitude within the Republican Party, I’ve just got one thing to say.
Surgeon General James Holsinger
:-p
Kynn
It’s cute how politically naive Michael D is.
It’s like John recruited someone who doesn’t know a thing about computers — except he thinks his new Dell laptop is really pretty looking! — to write a tech blog.
Let’s look at “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” How many Democratic candidates support ending that policy, and how many Republican candidates support ending it?
I know the answer. Do you?
Ted
I don’t know what it is with gay conservatives. They can be highly intelligent people, and then turn into 18 year-olds with stars in their eyes when it comes to official conservative revulsion with who they are and how time-tested and long-lasting that has and will be.
Just look at Andrew Sullivan, another perfect example. The guy is so naive at times, even about liberal Democrats (i.e. his recent Obama slobbering crush) I wonder where the hell he’s been living the last 15 years. Then I remember: D.C., and it makes a bit more sense.
Michael D.
I know who signed the law, do you?
Psycheout
I knew it was the leftist commentariot that brainwashed John!
Ted
Aha! That clinches it. Bill Clinton signed it over a decade ago, so it minimizes the current positions of Democrats, including those running for president (of whom I’ve not heard ONE say they support upholding that stupid policy, while almost all of the Republican pres. contenders do).
Therefore, the old bigots populating the ranks of the GOP will come around someday, someday real soon, you’ll see. Why, 35 GOP House members already did, and it had nothing to do with the fact that they represent more Democratic districts, risk losing their seats, and the margin being nowhere near close enough to require their votes anyway, so stop saying that.
I guess Michael doesn’t have any old overt racists in his family, like a lot of the rest of us. If he did, he’d understand that these people simply do not change their mind on who they’re prejudiced against.
jcricket
The more Andrew opens his mouth the dumber he gets. His obsession with the discredited theories behind The Bell Curve, his never-ending CDS and inability to get over the idea that length of posts and big words do not make him sound smart have convinced me that he’s not worth listening to anymore.
OK, you’re a gay Catholic who doesn’t like taxes, is frightened of “Islamists” and thinks Margaret Thatcher was the bees knees. 20,000 words later and that’s pretty much all you have to offer.
Plonk.
jcricket
Let’s be honest on this, the current Democrat’s wishy-washy waffling on the issue of gay marriage is pathetic. I understand why Clinton signed DOMA into law 10 years ago, but I hope he regrets it.
It’s exactly like Dems wishy-washy support for de-segregation, even after they officially adopted civil rights for minorities as a party platform. It (desegregation) happened, ultimately, in fits and starts and because of some bold leadership.
I expect the same thing, ultimately, with gay marriage. In the next 10 years, Dems will, slowly, be publicly in favor of repealing DOMA and eventually in favor of gay marriage. Republicans, on the other hand, will object until the day the Supreme Court forces the “Red States” to deal with the reality of gay marriage. During that time expect a lot of Republican teeth-knashing about the war on Christians, judicial activism, etc.
Yes, some Dems will also be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century on this issue, but as a party, Republicans will never adopt a “gay marriage is a good thing” plank to their platform. Never. Not. Gonna. Happen.
Richard Bottoms
Gay Republicans are fools, suckers who support a fag basing homophobic political party because their taxes are low.
The Democrats finally got smart on guns and other issues that were used against us for twenty five years. You can’t make change if you aren’t in control.
We will take over the White House and gain veto proof majorities in the House and the Senate in this through this election and/or the next.
We will kick the GOP in the balls, no mercy, no compromise, and we will keep your faces in the dirt for as long as humanly possible so we can reverse as much as possible of twenty five years of damage to the environment, welfare to big business and general conservative Christian insanity.
John was a tool for over three years until the level of disgust and horror grew so large in him that he had no choice but to see the light.
Four thousand dead soldiers will do that to you.
So you go right on defending the indefensible. Some time down the road you’ll hear one GOP horror too many and you’ll start to gag too.
Until then you can shove your vote.
Psycheout
Are you sure this is the kind of scum you want in charge of things?
ThymeZone
Well, the thing is, gays, on a political level, are just plain fools, period.
This is a demo that probably could have had widespread, if not national, civil unions for themselves, but decided to be smartasses and go for the “gay marriage strategy,” thereby setting back equal rights for themselves by probably 20-40 years. For no reason whatsoever.
Marriage is about the church. Civil union is about the law and equal protection. By going for the church-based issue, they assured themselves of heavy resistance and gave the GOP a faux wedge issue that reelected George Bush and created a Republican congress. Without doubt, the stupidest political move that I’ve seen in my lifetime.
So, the fact that someone is foolish enough to want to be a “gay Republican” doesn’t shock me as much as it would some people. To me it’s typical of gay political dumbness.
I am, for the record, in case you haven’t met me yet, a strong advocate of equal rights for everybody, including gays, and stupid people. Equal everything, even for those not smart enough to know how to get it.
If you want to see how stupid gay activists can be, just watch them dancing in support of having Larry Craig arrested for being gay, because, you know, it’s Larry Craig, the bad Republican guy. That’s right, hideously ugly law is okay as long as it’s applied against people you don’t like …. the very frame of mind that keeps gays from having equal rights.
Richard Bottoms
Fuck the Republicans.
My sister is a lesbian who I am pretty sure has no idea who Larry Craig is. And if one or one thousand gays want to celebrate this asshole’s downfall for whatever reason good for them.
Wanting to get is married is so dumb that our neighbor to the north allows it, so heaven knows no sane person should want the same thing for themselves. Right?
They should realize they live in a hyper-Christan fundamentalist country like… Saudia Arabia? Iran? Pakistan?
Why no, they live in the beacon of democracy the United States where all aspirations are possible.
Gays will get the right to marry within you lifetime.
Deal with it.
ThymeZone
No, actually, it’s bad for them. They are making just another dumb political move, and lining up to employ a law that is aimed at keeping them second class citizens.
It’s called “cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face” and it’s the most egregious example of it I have ever seen.
Gays won’t accomplish anything by harming Larry Craig, other than acting out some dumb idea of revenge. Whereas, if they stood with him and defended his right to be left alone, they’d be advancing their own real interests.
Politics today is all about knowing what your true interests are, and voting accordingly. If you are gay, and you advocate the harassment of a gay man, you’re acting against your real interests.
Why should straights stand up for gays when gays act like petulant children?
Gays will never get the right to “marry” in my lifetime, but they might get civil unions if they were smart enough to make that the goal … which they apparently are not.
Marriage is about the church, and the church has every right to make whatever rules they want to make.
Gays could do us all a favor and advance the civil union, thereby splitting the law away from the church and protecting us all from religious tyranny. But again, they aren’t smart enough for that. They’d rather have tears and tantrums. As long as they make it an emotional issue, they’ll keep losing.
demimondian
Sorry, TZ, but you don’t know what you’re talking about — you’re buying into the Republican talking points. In fact, the civil union position was wildly radical until the Massachusetts decision came down, after which the right started talking about it as the “sensible compromise the Gays wouldn’t accept.”
That’s bullshit. The GLBT communities had completely expected the Massachusetts case to fail. So be it — it pushes the political process forward one step at a time, and moves Massachusetts towards a real civil union bill. Only one problem — the Massachusetts State Supreme Court remembered Brown v Board of Education, and remembered that “separate but equal is inherently unequal.”
Remember, please, that DADT was Clinton’s fallback when we couldn’t even get gay men into the military — and that was in 92. That was just a generation ago, Herb; my eldest was three.
Richard Bottoms
Gays have no more obligation to anything to advance their “cause” than I am required to go solve the problem of crack to advance the black race.
They are citizens and taxpayers whose only obligation is to live their lives as they see fit.
Democrats sign fucked up legislation to stay politically viable, what a shock.
It’s a bullshit Republican talking point that says because Democrats won’t destroy themselves to stop the GOP for being such major assholes we’re as bad as they are.
Fuck that.
We don’t introduce such legislation for the most part and we work to moderate the damage to our side from GOP religious zealotry. The GOP is going to get reamed next year and with zero lube bub, all because of their 30 year dance with the devil’s minion’s led by Pat Robertson and all the rest.
ThymeZone
Bullcrap. Massachusetts is not America, and won’t be a model for America. If civil union is the goal, then the activists should ask for civil unions. They asked for marriage.
They fucked up. Marriage is church, and by making this semantic and strategic error, they set the cause back by at least 20 years. Politics is about what other people feel and think. If you want equal protection under the law, you don’t go after a church institution in this country. The demagogues lick their lips over such foolishness. The stupid “gay marriage” advocacy handed the GOP beast a free, renewable values card to play over and over again, and accomplished exactly nothing.
I’ll tell you how stupid gays are: If you offered them a choice between taking back “gay marriage” as an issue, and defeating Bush in 2004? They’d take their idiotic issue and keep Bush. That’s how stupid I think they are.
Who is talking abou DADT? It’s an idiotic rule.
In my view, if you want to get something in a political context, you ask for what you want, and you argue for it. What gays (should) want, and what they deserve, is equal protection under the law. Asking for “marriage” was the stupidest possible way to get there. It’s a hubris thing, an “in your face” thing. Every single legal protection can be given without ever using the word “marriage.” Taxation, and all the rest … it would be hard to argue that giving tax breaks to gay couples would “harm” marriage. The GOP’s entire phony values mantra would cease to exist. The hypocrisy of granting special tax status to a church institution would be exposed for what it is.
So save your time trying to gin up an fight over this with me. As usual, you’re wrong, and I’m right. As for gays and the GOP? I stopped giving a shit about gay rights the day I saw gays dancing with glee over the plight of Larry Craig. These people apparently would kill and eat their own relatives for spite because, you know, they’ve been treated so unfairly. If they don’t protect each other any better than that, why should I give a fuck about them?
Try to imagine a crowd of black people dancing with glee at the lynching of a black man who had sided with whites, and you can get an idea what we are talking about here.
One thing about hypocrisy, the people who exhibit it never fucking get it. Never.
Richard Bottoms
Ah, the tough life of the concern troll.
ThymeZone
Profound, but irrelevant. The fact is that boneheaded gays gave the GOP a phony issue they could ride like a mule, and set gays’ own true interests back 20 years.
Where I come from, that’s called a fuckup. They could have had everything they are entitled to, without the fuckup, and many years sooner. And we might not have Bush for president right now.
You want an example of stupid? How about Dick Cheney’s “gay activist” daughter standing up for his reelection? If you ever want an example of American political self-immolation, there you have it.
Gay Republicans make about as much sense to me as the idiots who vote for Ralph Nader. You know, on “principle.”
Thanks, guys. Really. Thanks for everything.
ThymeZone
Somebody who disagrees with you, big mouth?
ThymeZone
I see. So ending the nightmare means that the nightmare never actually happened? We didn’t harden resistance to gay marriage? We didn’t give Karl Rove the best values card he ever had in his hand? We didn’t have a GOP government for six years, and throw the country into a financial ditch, a foerign affairs ditch, a human rights ditch, and a Constitutional ditch?
Oh, well, then, never mind.
Richard Bottoms
Not we biatch, because I certainly didn’t vote for these ignorant motherfuckers once. Or even twice like some people we know. Maybe someone else?
The GOP is an evil party of homophobic Christian fundamentalist Southern partisan fascist dickheads who have won through fear and greed for two and a half decades.
That’s about to change mainly due to them getting 4,000 soldiers killed and 30,000 of them maimed enough so that even the most partisan GOP diehard is no longer sure that the South should rise again.
We don’t need their vote, we don’t want their vote because as soon as some soothing “maverick” comes along, someone who makes the average GOP voter think they’re not voting for a greedy incompetent ideologue, they’ll go running after that mirage again. The mirage of a Republican who cares about anything other than zero taxes, crushing imperial force, and fuck everybody else.
PaulB
“The fact is that boneheaded gays gave the GOP a phony issue they could ride like a mule, and set gays’ own true interests back 20 years.”
You have yet to present even a shred of evidence that this is true. From where I sit, gay civil rights has advanced enormously over the past several years, particularly among the younger crowd, where it matters most.
“Gays will never get the right to ‘marry’ in my lifetime”
Only if you mean a truly comprehensive nationwide right to marry (for the record, there is no reason to put the word in quotes). Gay men and women already have the right to marry in Massachusetts, a right that is less and less likely to be overturned with each passing month. I’m quite confident that at least half a dozen other states will join Massachusetts in your lifetime.
PaulB
“If you want to see how stupid gay activists can be, just watch them dancing in support of having Larry Craig arrested for being gay, because, you know, it’s Larry Craig, the bad Republican guy. That’s right, hideously ugly law is okay as long as it’s applied against people you don’t like …. the very frame of mind that keeps gays from having equal rights.”
Man, what a load of crap. Not only are you quite wrong about what “gay activists” are doing and why they are doing it, but your little “blame the victim” schtick is simply old and tired and needs to be put to rest. Grow up and start thinking with your brain instead of with your prejudices.
Psycheout
For idiots like Bottom boy here, it’s all about dangling a loogie over the face of his enemy rather than actually winning anything. Bottom boys are the gift that keeps on giving. Rational people on his own side don’t even want to associate with him.
Although a loudmouth, TZ is right here, but he’ll never convince Dick Bottom. You see, Dick’s a bully, not a thinker. Keep up the good work, idiot.
If gays would work for getting marriage equivalent civil unions they’ll probably get gay “marriage” much faster. But like Dick, with the loudmouths leading the gay agenda, it’s not about winning, it’s about rubbing it in the face of their enemies. Really, really stupid.
jake
Yeah, it’s just like those smartasses the Lovings. They certainly ballsed things up for everyone else by insisting they had the right to marry, damn them!
Strange, everyone I know who’s ever gotten married first had to go to a government agency (ie a county court house) to get a Marriage License and if they want they can have a government official do the ceremony. After that official signs the piece of paper the couple got from the government agency, they are just as married as if a priest or rabbi does the ceremony and without ever darkening the door of a house of worship. Conversely, you can get the Pope to conduct your marriage ceremony but if you don’t have that bit of paper from the government, you ain’t married. But that’s just how we do things on the HippyLibrulTerrist East Coast. Maybe things are different elsewhere.
Yes, it has nothing to do with the frame of mind of the sort of people who see some members of a minority behaving in an obnoxious way and think “Well all of those people are nasty,” because it fits nicely with whatever preconceived stereotypes they’ve got banging about in their tiny heads and doesn’t require the difficult task of seeing “teh other” as individuals. By that logic, since the vast majority of serial killers have been Caucasian heterosexual males, all CHMs must be serial killers. Right?
I wonder how they fit serial killing into their busy schedule of attending rallies for white supremacy groups, starting unnecessary wars and undermining the Constitution?
jcricket
Don’t forget that 18 states (18) still made it illegal for blacks and whites to marry when Loving v. Virginia was decided. Moreoever, a plurality of people still opposed interracial marriage, though it was legal in the majority of states.
I expect something similar to happen with gay marriage. In 10 years or so a couple more liberal states will legalize gay marriage, someone will press for equal consideration of their marriage in states that don’t accept it, and courts will issue contradictory rulings. Until some time, probably about 20 years out, when gay marriage will be legal across the US.
If civil unions were a viable (offered same rights, privileges, and protections) as marriage, most gays would be all over it. But the reality is that for large and small reasons, civil unions are continued second-class citizenship for gays.
There may have been some temporary setbacks by demanding full equality, but in the long run it helps highlight what’s at stake. One party will fight anything resembling gay marriage until they’re basically dead (that would be Republicans). The other party will eventually seize on the issue as another reason why they’re the party that truly represents all Americans, and run with it.
And btw, TZ has a stick up his ass about some perceived hypocrisy due to the schadenfreude displayed whenever another gay-hating Republican is outed or hoist by his own moralizing petard. There’s no arguing with him about it, so don’t bother.
jake
Gee, people in the 21st century, objecting to the doctrine of Separate but Equal? Who wudda thunk it!
One of the many hazards of running on the “Don’t you need somebody to hate?” platform is eventually someone will hand you a big quivering piece of meat on a platter and on closer inspection you’ll realize its your own ass. I’ve marveled before at the fact that Republicans don’t seem to “get” technology, ie they still don’t understand that if they say “XYZ” in front of a recording device at 1 pm ET, it will be all over the ‘tubes by 2.15 pm ET and so saying “I didn’t say XYZ,” makes them look deranged. The other thing they don’t “get” is the days of controlling what people think of other groups is pretty much over. A person might not personally know a gay person (or know they know a gay person) but they might watch Ellen Degeneres on TV and she’s not a scary person. Especially when compared to a “normal” woman like Britney Spears. However, the Reps keep plugging away with “Ooo, look out! They’re going to ruin marriage, make you wear burquas, take your jobs, steal your cars!” while the majority of the country is chatting on message boards with the dreaded “they” and starting to wonder what all of the fuss is about.
I had noticed. What I’m objecting to (if I am permitted to commit so unseemly an act), is the bullshit suggestion that every single member of a minority group must behave At All Times or it will be All Their Fault if they don’t get their equal rights.
PaulB
“For idiots like Bottom boy here, it’s all about dangling a loogie over the face of his enemy rather than actually winning anything.”
ROFL…. My goodness, but what a drama queen you are. Too bad you cannot support this assertion any more than you can your other silly assertions.
“Bottom boys are the gift that keeps on giving. Rational people on his own side don’t even want to associate with him.”
LOL…. Whatever you say, dear.
“Although a loudmouth, TZ is right here”
No, dear, he’s not, as any perusal of the current situation would show.
“but he’ll never convince Dick Bottom.”
Not without evidence, dear. Funny, that neither of you can actually come up with any. Why is that?
“You see, Dick’s a bully, not a thinker. Keep up the good work, idiot.”
I’m sure he will, dear heart.
“If gays would work for getting marriage equivalent civil unions they’ll probably get gay ‘marriage’ much faster.”
And the evidence for this is … what, exactly? In any case, dear, you’re overlooking the fact that they already do, in fact, have gay marriage (do note the lack of quote marks, dear; it’s only idiots and bigots who feel the need to pretend that gay marriage is really gay “marriage” — which are you?).
“But like Dick, with the loudmouths leading the gay agenda, it’s not about winning, it’s about rubbing it in the face of their enemies. Really, really stupid.”
ROFLMAO…. And yet, dear heart, you have presented zero evidence that we are not, in fact, “winning”. Why is that, dear?
PaulB
“But the reality is that for large and small reasons, civil unions are continued second-class citizenship for gays.”
Yup. Most notably, the absence of federal recognition, which affects literally hundreds of rights, privileges, and responsibilities. It isn’t even remotely “separate but equal.”
PaulB
In all seriousness, the evidence that the push for marriage enhanced the quest for gay civil rights is just as strong, if not stronger, as the evidence that it hampered it.
Just a few short years ago, Vermont became the first state in the country to pass civil unions. The reaction at the time was “doom and gloom” all the way, with promises of reprisals, impeachment, and the zealots vowing never to stop until the bill was overturned. So what actually happened? A few legislators lost their bid for reelection … and that was it. Dean was reelected, no justices were impeached, and, seven years later, civil unions are a non-issue in Vermont. No one cares anymore.
Moreover, there are now ten states that offer some recognition of same-sex relationships, including Massachusetts, where gay men and women can now marry. And the longer that state of affairs continues in Massachusetts, the less likely it is that it will be overturned and the more likely it is that other states will follow suit. As a spokesman for the Family Research Council stated: “The more states that do this, the less radical and more plausible the idea may appear in others.”
That statement is precisely correct. Prior to this push for marriage, people were likely most aware of gay men and women from the coverage of annual Gay Pride events. Now, though, the coverage was about couples that had been together for years and just wanted recognition of that fact, not to mention stories about the heartbreaking events caused by lack of such recognition. In San Francisco, for example, usually notable for coverage of leather events in the Castro district, the coverage was about Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, a lesbian couple that had been together for 51 years.
In my home state of Washington, the legislature just passed a domestic partnership law and recently passed a non-discrimination law, after years of trying. This is a setback? I pray that we continue to have such setbacks.
In recent years, the opposition to gay marriage has dropped dramatically, after remaining stagnant for several decades. Look at the polls, year by year, since Vermont acted. Each year, the opposition had dropped and support has increased. Right now, most polls indicate that a majority of voters approve some recognition of same-sex relationships, something that would have been unthinkable just ten short years ago. This is a backlash? I hope it continues.
The argument that there has been a setback largely rests on the fact that the majority of states passed legislation or amendments prohibiting recognition of same-sex marriages. But same-sex marriages were already not recognized in those states, so how is this a setback? Over time, that legislation and those amendments will be overturned.
Basically, people like TZ are saying that we should have remained in the back of the bus and kept quiet, on the assumption that if we behaved ourselves and didn’t make any noise that eventually the majority would have gotten around to recognizing our rights. Fuck that. It was lousy advice forty years ago; it’s lousy advice today.
PaulB
As for those who argue that the Democratic Party isn’t much better than the Republican Party on gay civil rights, that’s only if you’re looking on the national level. Look at the state and local level, which is where most of the action has taken place in the last several years.
Over and over again, it’s the Republican Party that has been acting against gay civil rights — trying to ban gay men and women from adopting or serving as foster parents, trying to block hate crimes laws, trying to block employment discrimination acts, and so on. And over and over again, it’s the Democratic Party that has been acting for gay civil rights, acting in opposition to the Republican Party. The past thirty years have seen dramatic gains in most states and communities, fought every inch of the way by the Republican Party and supported every inch of the way by the Democratic Party.
There is a dramatic difference between the parties, which is why the majority of gay men and women vote Democratic.
Richard Bottoms
People making fun of my name, that’s so … original. Like Junior High School original.
Since I’m not gay I’m not sure what the gay agenda is, if someone could send me a lnk to it I’d appreciate the update.
You are right about one thing. It is about winning. About kicking the GOP’s ass and rubbing their faces in it like a dog’s nose in shit.
Fuck the Republican party.
jake
Another flaw with the GOP’s noise machine (a flaw for them at any rate). They rushed around shrieking that the world would end and children would be subjected to forced gay marriages to abortionists and the terrists would cut our heads off and we’d wind up living in caves fighting over the last rat if people of the same gender are allowed to marry.
And then Massachusetts allowed people of the same gender to marry and … O noes! Look out! We’re all doooomed … [crickets chirp].
I have no way to prove this, but I like to think various Xtian crack-heads blaming this or that disaster on the fact gays and lesbians are “tolerated” in the US also helped create a mood of general revulsion against those shits and the things they stand for. Photos of Fred Phelch and his brood at a soldier’s funeral are, in a way, the modern day equivalent of pictures of cops setting police dogs on kids 40 years ago.
Not that I’m suggesting we thank those mother fuckers or anything, but as poster children for homophobia they’re useful mother fuckers.