I generally don’t have much of a beef with the Log Cabin Republicans. Gay rights are obviously important to me, but they aren’t the most important thing. If we lived in a world where, somehow, the Republicans and Dems had all the same policy positions they do in real life, but their positions on gay rights were reversed, I’d probably still vote Democrat. So, I don’t mind too much when a queer decides to back the Republican party at the expense of the gay rights movement. At least, nit any more than when a straight person votes Republican.
However, having made the decision to place gay rights at the bottom of the list if their concerns, the Log Cabin has forfited the right to criticize other people on this issue. My view on Obama’s declaration isn’t that far off from magellan’s, and I’ve got a lot of problems with Obama’s history with gay rights, but he’s stil done a thousand times more for gay rights than these miserable fucks in the Log Cabin. Criticizing him for this statement, while endorsing Mitt fucking Romney? These assholes need to die in a fire.
I think they simply have the cart in front of the horse. The position that sexual orientation has nothing at all to do with conservative/liberal politics is correct and sensible. But they want to pretend that is a present fact, and not something than needs to be realized and achieved.
Thanks fumster; I came in to post this exact exchange.
magellan01, Are you even aware of what Republican leaders SAY IN PUBLIC? The presumptive candidate for the Republicans said he would NOT have made the decision to go after Osama in Pakistan.
And you’ll note that I was not Idolizing Obama, nor fawning over him. I said he made a couple of gutsy decisions. That was just too much for you to bear, eh?
There are Christian Marxists too. That said, I doubt they’d criticise Hélder Câmara while urging their party to adopt Leninist views and reject populism.
If Romney did come out for it he’d A: say he had always been for it, B: claim that Obama and Biden had only been for it because of him and C: he was actually behind the Stonewall Riots.
I don’t believe he ever took a stand in his life, or at least any where he said plainly what he stood for and then stuck with it instead of fipflopping or lying.
Besides, according to the papers (Washington Post etc) he used to enjoy bullying “suspected gays” when in his posh preppy school - and didn’t even have big enough balls to do it on his own, he had his “clique” help him.
Plus he’s a Mormon. I’m still furious at the utah Mormons for interfering in California issues (Prop 8). So to hell with Romney.
So in short, I agree with your appraisal of him. “Weasel” is too mild a word.
Right. Words are important and it’s great that Obama said he supports gay marriage. But even more important are actions, and Obama has done a fair amount for gay rights. I posted this article in the thread in Elections, but it seems good to post here as well. It’s a good summary of what Obama has done in regards to gay rights.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
The various commentators getting in a huff that he “delayed” the implementation are factually wrong and politically stupid.
[/QUOTE]
And this, too.
Honestly, Obama has pissed me off a few times, too (which I knew he would do when I voted for him), but I do wish that my fellow queens would grow the fuck up, stop being so pissy, try to grasp the political realities that the man has been dealing with, and just shut the fuck up and work to get him re-elected. He’s done more for gay rights than any other president, and they still can’t give him credit? Damn.
Seems to me that the pace of this change has caught a lot of people off guard. Its very interesting when that happens. Remember when we were first encouraged to adopt “Ms.” as the female equivalent to “Mr.”? Compared to changes in racial attitudes, to take a grim example, the speed of our shift in attitudes towards teh gay is astonishing.
Maybe as progressives, we are so inured to the glacial and vexing pace of positive change, we get perplexed when good things happen more quickly that we expect. We are suited up for a three-hundred inning game, that’s what we are ready for, the long hard slog. One minute, you’re straining to pull the stubborn mule forward, the next minute you’re hanging onto the rope for dear life, scraping along the road. Which is really a drag.
Have the Log Cabin Republicans endorsed Mitt Romney yet? I don’t think they have. They’ve made statements in the primary that he was one of the more gay-friendly candidates, but I don’t think there’s been an actual endorsement, and in fact, they just criticized him today for coming out against gay marriage and civil unions:
I thought that Obama campaigned on DADT repeal, ordered the top military brass to conduct a study about repeal consequences (national security, soldiers’ input, outline a transition plan, etc) after assuming office, asked the DoJ/courts/whoever to let the legislative process take care of repeal after the military study was finished (the military brass did not want sudden intervention by federal courts), the Republicans and a few Dems filibustered the next defense spending bill that included a DADT repeal amendment (before the military study report had been released, but after the House version of the defense bill passed), then The Senate finally voted to repeal DADT in a smaller bill separate from the main defense spending bill (House did too) during the lame duck session 2010 soon after the military released a report with results of its study of repeal. And that study took a long time…over a year I think. After all that, Obama was finally able to sign the repeal bill. What else could he have done to speed up the process?
I don’t think that the Log Cabin Pubs 'trash’ed Obama’s sudden explicit support for gay marriage. Rather, they were ridiculing him for previously straddling the middle…support for civil unions, but not gay/lesbian marriage…to try and please as many voters as possible. They think he should have supported G/L marriage a long time ago. Naturally, I agree that their reaction to a Romney flop in favor of G/L marriage would spawn a favorable reaction from LCRs.
I support equal contractual rights among couples of all varieties involving whether you call them marriages, gayrriages, or lerriages. As a straight libertarian leaning independent, I am always happy when the right wing gets outraged.
The funny thing is how if you read any of the accounts of the tough decision, the one that the GOP failed to make, you have to force yourself to believe the precise opposite of reality in order to convince yourself that the argument you’re making here is true. Because there is so much evidence that it was, in fact, a tough decision that required real guts to make (as well as, of course, the previous leadership that made it possible at all.)
So, it’s my job to make sure that you understand what is going on before you form an opinion? Interesting. Oh, what the hell:
So, now we have a fuller context to judge. But let’s add tho that, shall we, by looking at what others said in response to that same comment from Obama:
From Hilary:
From Biden:
And, as a reminder, the quote from Romney:
Horrible, just horrible… :roll eyes:
Now, tell me, do you think that Biden and Hilary would also have chosen to NOT get bin Laden of represented with the same opportunity Obama was given?