Log Cabin Republicans: go sit on splintery split-rail dildos the lot of ye

For the life of me I can’t understand Log Cabin Republicans. “Women for the Return of Corsets” or “Vegetarians for More Slaughterhouses” or “Buddhists for Scientology for Jesus” would be no more improbable or oxymoronical category.

I remember in 2000 when a former friend of mine from high school, then the VP of the LCR in NYC, said (direct quote) “George Bush doesn’t give a hoot about people’s private lives” when asked point blank about concerns that Bush would promote anti-gay legislation. Well the friend remained with the LCR (according to their directory), even being one of the ones who endorsed Bush again (the LCR itself did not) after he tried to enact the Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.

Now they’re endorsing McCain:

To quote Patrick Stewart’s flamingly gay choreographer character in JEFFREY,

Bitch, have you even listened to McCain talk about gay issues? He’s pro Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, his running mate belongs to a church that believes you can pray the gay away, and he doesn’t even mention LGBT issues on his web site (last year he didn’t even have a clue what LGBT meantwhen asked about them). The only mention of gays on his official web site is under

Homepage>>>Issues>>>Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life>>>Protecting Marriage (which some would think is already not an auspicious sign).

There’s more but you get the point: he thinks that you (Log Cabin Republicans [or if you prefer, Elephag and Tuskdyke Americans]) are something the rest of the country needs protecting from.

Now perform the following google search:

gay site:johnmccain.com

Omitting people named Gay, the main hits are reprinted articles from newspapers that slam Obama for his support of gays. Example:

The SCotUS has ruled that marriage is a civil right for incarcerated mass murderers, so much the state must even float a part of the bill in allowing the wedding, but… at least Susan Atkins and Tex Watson aren’t fags.

Uh, yeah…

Clear enough? Oh, and for the military---- no pooftahs! (Take one look at Sarah Palin’s hair and you’ll see his campaign doesn’t even use gay stylists!)

You fucking flaming faggots would carry the flaming faggots for your own burning.

McCain doesn’t want you.

He will accept your checks as individuals, but he will never appear at a LCR event or fundraiser.

How much coverage did you get when you announced your support of him at the Big Tent Event of the RNC?

You don’t exist! You are the mulatto bastards at the Republican Faulknerian Family Reunion! Why do you praise him? Why do you support him?

I have no delusions that an Obama administration would make Gay Day a national holiday, but at least he has a LGBT section on his site. He doesn’t support marriage (a political expediency I’ve no doubt) but at least he doesn’t feel he needs to protect the rest of America from Will & Grace. At very least he’d probably speak to you.

For high earnin’ fags with incomes in the high six figures or above, I can understand it: your money means more to you than your visibility and self-respect. For the rest of you… I can only assume you’re 22 year old twinks living in the guest room of the Central Park view apartment of a much older Log Fence Faggot Roy Cohn wannabe. Perhaps it’ll turn out he works for Lehman Brothers and you’ll be free at last to vote Democrat.

Don’t understand these folks, not tat all. I’d say it takes all kinds to make a world, but I see no evidence of that.

LCRs have always been a cognitive disconnect for me. It’s the epitome of oxymoron, emphasis on moron.

I’d hazard that they don’t understand themselves.

FTR, my boss is a “high earnin’ fag” and he support Hilary and now supports Obama (although he’s no exactly down with Obama’s overall stance).

All but one of them. There was this really cute log cabin boy at Pride in LA a couple months back. I’d totally hit that. I don’t care if he is a republican!

So what is a ‘Log Cabin’ Republican, again? A liberal Republican?

A gay Republican (or a gay-friendly straight one, though I doubt there are more than one or two).

Sampiro is gay.

You know, it would be a lot easier to take your suggestion that they should base their vote solely on their sexual orientation seriously if you refrained from the homophobic insults.

I did not know that. Suddenly US political stories make a bit more sense.

What’s not to understand? They’re gay people who think the Republican Party is more correct than the Democratic one, by and large. I mean, what’s the choice if you think like that? Vote for the Democrats, who you agree with on the gay issue but whose views are anathema to you on everything else, or vote for the Republicans, who you agree with on everything except the gay issue? It’s a lot easier (although still really difficult) to stay a Republican and work to make the Republicans more gay friendly than to become a Democrat and work to make the Democrats more conservative on everything else.

Oh my, this is golden. Although I suppose it’s understandable if you’re not familiar with Sampiro.

If there’s one thing I’m sure Sampiro is not, it’s homophobic.

Republicans who advocate for gay and lesbian rights.

Why do you assume that just because I like show tunes and had a mother fixation and like jewel tones and sex with good looking men that I’m gay? (Lord, people and their labels.)

I would say the choice would be vote Republican, but DON’T try to rationalize it with a pack of bullshit about how the Republican candidate gives a tinkerbell’s dam about gay rights. A better platform would be “Yeah, I know, we’re the stepchildren at best, BUT we think his tax plans and his Iraq policy [or whatever] will benefit us more than Obama’s because x and y and z” instead of trying to reform the party from within Berchtesgaden.

What’s funny from that list is Michael Huffington. Who’dve thought that he would remain Republican while his wife strayed further left after the divorce?

ETA (not pertinent to above):

In the LCR president’s own words

bolding mine
McCain is now wishy washy and has indicated he would support such a ban, besides which he voted no on prohibiting job discrimination based upon sexual orientation (which to me, as a single man, is currently more important than the marriage ban).

But (and I’m just asking here) if you are down with the Repubs on their conservative agenda, excepting their social conservatism, wouldn’t that make you more of a libertarian than a Republican? If you take away the truly repugnant part of the Republican agenda (the idea that you should restrict people’s liberty by legislating Christian morals), then you are left with (in theory, at least, if not in reality) fiscal conservatism, small government, and a foreign policy that (at least for many Republicans) tends toward isolationism. What am I missing?

I don’t think you quite understand (or appreciate) the depth of the disconnect here. It’s not like they agree on everything but farm subsidies. They’re members of a party whose membership, by and large, thinks they are suffering from a disease (at best), or that they’re dangerous deviants at worst.

It’s a bit like saying you agree with Hizballah on everything except their Israel policy but you think you can get that sorted out.

I think this is a pretty godo explanation, and there are plenty of other similar examples. I’ve met a few Republicans that favor legal abortions, I’ve met quite a few Democrats that favor gun rights. I don’t think it’s beyond the pale to imagine that someone would take into consideration more than the obvious issues for them.

I think too many people in this country are single issue voters(or maybe focus on only two or three issues), and they end up voting for a candidate that they agree with on the issues they care about most, while ultimately choosing someone they generally disagree with. In fact, I’d have to say I find it commendable that someone has the conviction to vote for a candidate that may actually be detrimental to them personally but who thinks is generally the better candidate overall for the country.

Ultimately, I think they’re right too. I’m not speaking to their individual politics (since I don’t want to open that can of worms), but I do think that if they agree with them on the other grounds, pressure from them, as well as from the voting blocs that they’re seeking will cause change. Certainly, if they agree with them on the economy, foreign policy, or whatever, that effects the entire country, while those specific policies with which they disagree effect a small fraction.

By that standard, 20% of the guys I know are gay.

Well, you are happy, aren’t you? Whatever did you think I meant?

Most of the time, I mean, not right now.