# Log Cabin Republicans – What’s wrong with these Queens? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 15, 2002, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879 "2002-11-15T16:43:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879/101 "2002-11-18T03:25:12Z")
Minty: > [@](#): > > It provides only that states don’t have to recognize other states’ gay marriages, if such marriages are ever legalized. It neither prevents states from recognizing homosexual marriages nor attacks any right that gays and lesbians already possess. It does something else that you seem to have forgotten. According to the legislation itself (and I quote directly from the summary page issued by Congress) > [@](#): > > it defines the words “marriage” and “spouse” for purposes of Federal law. and: > [@](#): > > The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make > explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; > that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and > wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. That pretty much puts the kibosh on gay marriage doesn’t it. There’s also some language about the term “spouse” in their for legal purposes. In effect, this prevents gay couples from receiving any and all of the Federal protections afforded a partner in marriage: inheritance, joint ownership, tax-filing and status, insurance, and benefits, etc. etc. I would think that the recognition of gay marriage, and the attendant benefits and legal status associated with it, is the largest and most important issue surrounding gay rights right now. The implications of the state’s ability not to recognize the marriages of other states is also pretty serious, as it pretty much invalidates the protections of marriage even in those states where it’s recognized. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879/102 "2002-11-18T03:31:06Z")
Refresh my memory, in case it fails: other than Barney Frank (God bless 'em) are there any openly gay Congressmen or Senators? Have any openly gay persons ever run on a Republican ticket? On a Democrat ticket? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879/103 "2002-11-18T03:38:59Z")
There’s been a couple, I think. And, IIRC correctly the Gov of Arizona is openly gay, and a Pubbie, as well as either a Senator or Congressman but I might be confused on that last. Arizona of course is the font from which all conservatism flows and makes the world a better place for everybody, being Goldwater’s home state. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879/104 "2002-11-18T03:44:13Z")
Jim Kolbe is a Republican from Arizona who’s openly gay. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879/105 "2002-11-18T03:54:58Z")
And Steve may, also a Republican. Cal Anderson who died of AIDS in 1995, a Democrat. Tammy Baldwin, Democrat. Jon Hinson, a Republican, died of aids. Barbara Jordan, a Democrat from Texas Then there was Gerry Studds, the first openly gay congressman, a Democrat. I think though he got in trouble for having sex with a kid while in Congress. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879/106 "2002-11-18T04:00:32Z")
You have some significant misconceptions about what DOMA does. [Here](http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm) is the DOMA bill analysis: > [@](#): > > The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things. First, it provides that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to a same-sex “marriage.” Second, it defines the words “marriage” and “spouse” for purposes of Federal law. #1 is exactly what I said. #2 defines the terms under _federal_ law. That has no effect on _state_ law. Nothing in DOMA prevents Vermont from enforcing its own domestic partnership law, nor would it prevent Vermont from extending its marriage laws to include gays and lesbians. Here’s what the bill analysis says about that point: > [@](#): > > The first substantive section of the bill is an exercise of Congress’ power under the “Effect” clause of Article IV, section 1 of the Constitution (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) to allow each State (or other political jurisdiction) to decide for itself whether it wants to grant legal status to same-sex “marriage.” > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Scylla_ > In effect, this prevents gay couples from receiving any and all of the Federal protections afforded a partner in marriage: inheritance, joint ownership, tax-filing and status, insurance, and benefits, etc. etc. Inheritance, forms of property ownership, and insurance are entirely matters of state law. Federal law has no impact whatsoever on those matters. I’m not sure what you mean by “benefits,” since those are primarily matters of contract anyway, and people can generally contract for whatever the heck they want. It’s not like DOMA waltzes in and suddenly invalidates Disney’s offer of insurance coverage for the partners of its gay and lesbian employees. The only one of those items you enumerated that appears to actually be effected by DOMA is federal taxes. Looks like gays and lesbians don’t get to file jointly even if a state were to extend the benefits of its marriage laws to them. I’m really speculating there, however, since I don’t have my Internal Revenue code here at home and I don’t recall how it defines “spouse” or the criteria for joint filing. So I’ll give you partial credit on one item, zero credit on three, and an incomplete on another. > [@](#): > > The implications of the state’s ability not to recognize the marriages of other states is also pretty serious, as it pretty much invalidates the protections of marriage even in those states where it’s recognized. Huh? How does New Hampshire’s refusal to recognize gay marriages “invalidate” the benefits of domestic partners in Vermont? I’m serious here, I honestly don’t get your point. > [@](#): > > I would think that the recognition of gay marriage, and the attendant benefits and legal status associated with it, is the largest and most important issue surrounding gay rights right now. Certainly _one_ important issue, but far from the only one. Anti-discrimination laws are pretty high on the agenda, AIDS research and health care are right up there, and hate crimes laws draw a lot of support too. Hell, there’s a significant number of gays and lesbians who affirmatively reject the notion of marriage as heterocentric and generally undesirable. DOMA is a slap in the face, no question, but it’s hardly the sole or even the central issue of homosexual politics. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879/107 "2002-11-18T04:17:12Z")
Minty: Try this: [http://www.buddybuddy.com/doma.html](http://www.buddybuddy.com/doma.html) and from withing the same cite: [http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-prim.html](http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-prim.html) ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879/108 "2002-11-18T04:21:29Z")
Try them for what? Nothing there contradicts anything I said about DOMA, and they certainly don’t support your misconceptions about the law. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879/109 "2002-11-18T04:39:45Z")
Okay. My hypothetical and (sadly) entirely fictional partner and I live in Vermont. We get married under that state’s domestic partner law. He gets transferred to (say) Utah. What happens to us? This is why DOMA is seriously flawed and ultimately damaging to constitutional protections. That’s without even bringing up the pure evil of the whole principle involved in the damn thing. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879/110 "2002-11-18T04:40:33Z")
You read them both in 4 minutes? Do we really need to go into this? Ok. > [@](#): > > Inheritance, forms of property ownership, and insurance are entirely matters of state law. Federal law has no impact whatsoever on those matters. This is contradicted in the second cite. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean by “benefits,” since those are primarily matters of contract anyway, and people can generally contract for whatever the heck they want. A spouse automatically receives a pension, and can take over retirement accounts, and certain insurance contracts without penalty. They lose the unlimited spousal exemption, which is a **huge** deal. Insurance and employment benefits are regulated Federally, and it is binding that they be honored from state to state for **spouses.** > [@](#): > > Looks like gays and lesbians don’t get to file jointly even if a state were to extend the benefits of its marriage laws to them. I’m really speculating there, however, since I don’t have my Internal Revenue code here at home and I don’t recall how it defines “spouse” or the criteria for joint filing. So I’ll give you partial credit on one item, Don’t just give me partial credit because **you** don’t understand it. The whole second point of defining “Spouse” and marriage “Federally” is to disallow protections and tax filing status. You **don’t** get to file jointly, federally, if you’re gay under Doma. You don’t get to transfer property, and you can be compelled to testify against your spouse as well as about 1000 other things that can’t happen if you’re marriage is recognized federally which it explicitly is not under DOMA which states that “marriage” and “Spouse” only apply to opposite sex couples, like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare benefits, the spousal impovershment act is invalidated for gay couples. There is no question, here. This is the whole point of the second part of DOMA. > [@](#): > > Huh? How does New Hampshire’s refusal to recognize gay marriages “invalidate” the benefits of domestic partners in Vermont? I’m serious here, I honestly don’t get your point. Travel becomes an issue as does the state of domicile of the company for which they are employed. They have issues like things with Insurance on automobiles if they drive out of State, as well as their house in State, as well as the ability to collect on spousal issues if the opposing party is domiciled out of state. > [@](#): > > Certainly one important issue, but far from the only one. Anti-discrimination laws are pretty high on the agenda, DOMA is discrimination. [quote] AIDS research and health care are right up there, [/quotes] I don’t consider AIDS a gay issue. It’s a health care issue, and health care is significantly effected by DOMA in terms of things like COBRA, the federally mandated continuation of benefits to Spouses, Medicare, medicaid, and the Spousal Impovershment Act. These are all Federal protections afforded to Spouses which do not exist under DOMA. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879/111 "2002-11-18T04:46:08Z")
Oh, and I’m against Hate crime status as it affords preferential treatment of parties based on their sexual, or racial characteristics. No matter whether that protection or treatment is deserved or merited, it is still discrimination and cannot be abided. ---
**Author:** ![lel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8797f3/32.png) [@lel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lel)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879/112 "2002-11-18T05:19:04Z")
As a clarification, selected Arizona gay politicians: [Jim Kolbe](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/jimkolbe_live.html) ®, U.S. House, District 8 (as a curious side note, he [voted for DOMA](http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9608/02/briefs/index.shtml)) [Steve May](http://www.stevemay.org/) ®, former State House member, lost in primary election in 2002 [Ken Cheuvront](http://www.azstonewalldems.com/about.htm) (D), State House member, Democratic Leader of the House, State Senator-elect [Neil Giuliano](http://www.pflag-phoenix.org/AZgaystate.html) ®, mayor of Tempe, Arizona Neither the current Arizona governor, Jane Dee Hull ®, nor the governor-elect, Janet Napolitano (D), is gay. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879/113 "2002-11-18T05:25:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > [Re: Inheritance, property ownership, and insurance being matters of state law, not federal law] > This is contradicted in the second cite. It fucking well is not. The second page you linked talks of the legal benefits of marriage. If Utah recognizes same-sex marriage, all residents of Utah who are married to same-sex partners **WILL** , absofuckingtively, have all the benefits of marrriage afforded under Utah state law. DOMA changes not a goddamn thing about that, and your cite says **NOTHING** about how federal law supposedly regulates inheritance/property/insurance law. > [@](#): > > A spouse automatically receives a pension, and can take over retirement accounts, and certain insurance contracts without penalty. Sure. But what’s the source of that law? Is it state law or federal law? 'Cause if it’s state law, DOMA doesn’t impact it in the slightest. > [@](#): > > They lose the unlimited spousal exemption, which is a **huge** deal. Oh, you’re pissed off about inheritance _taxes_. Why didn’t you say so? Your complaint is kinda pointless, since no state in the nation offers same-sex marriages. Not even Vermont, AFAIK, would attempt give same-sex partners “spouse” status that would impact the federal inheritance tax. Taxation and right of inheritance are rather separate issues, you know. And of course, it’s _my_ party that wants to assure gays and lesbians “an equitable alignment of benefits,” and _your_ party that “[does] not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law.” Thus, I have a pretty good idea which party might actually fix that inequity if a state ever gets around to recognizing same-sex marraiges. > [@](#): > > Insurance and employment benefits are regulated Federally, and it is binding that they be honored from state to state for **spouses.** Sure, now show me one of those regulations that makes a lick of difference. Go on. > [@](#): > > You don’t get to transfer property, Wrong. Property transfer is **ENTIRELY** a matter of state law. Taxation and transfer are separate subjects. Taxation is a question of how big a chunk of your estate the government takes for itself. Transfer is who the rest of the estate goes to. > [@](#): > > DOMA is discrimination. No fucking shit. Have I said otherwise? And ya know what? I’m sick to death of talking about DOMA. It sucks, and I don’t like it, even though it’s small potatoes on the gay rights agenda. Instead, how 'bout you talk about NDEA for a change. Tell me, Scylla, why is it acceptable for Republicans to overwhelmingly vote against a bill that would prevent employers from discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation, just as the law already prohibits employers from discriminating against people on the basis of race, gender, national origin, and religion? At least on DOMA, we had bipartisan discrimination. On NDEA, it was the Republicans who overwhelmingly rejected gay rights. Kindly explain how that fits into your fantasy of a Republican Party where the Log Cabin Republicans are valued and respected members. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879/114 "2002-11-18T05:34:53Z")
And even better, show me a gay rights initiative that has been supported by either the Republican Party itself or the leaders of that party. Even one. Go on, knock us out with how gay-friendly your party really is. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879/115 "2002-11-18T11:45:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\* Looks like gays and lesbians don’t get to file jointly even if a state were to extend the benefits of its marriage laws to them. \*\* If you’re correct, **minty** , this may be financially good for gays and lesbians. When two individuals both earn income, they pay _more_ federal income tax if they’re married. The Bush tax cut will gradually reduce, but not eliminate, the “marriage penalty.” ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879/116 "2002-11-18T14:25:15Z")
Minty: The unlimited spousal exemption is not inheritance tax. > [@](#): > > It fucking well is not. The second page you linked talks of the legal benefits of marriage. And mentions and names some of the 1000 or so Federal laws and protections that benefit spouses. > [@](#): > > Utah who are married to same-sex partners WILL, absofuckingtively, have all the benefits of marrriage afforded under Utah state law. And none of those provided under Federal law. > [@](#): > > and your cite says NOTHING about how federal law supposedly regulates inheritance/property/insurance law. You must be blind. > [@](#): > > Taxation and right of inheritance are rather separate issues, you know This is getting stupid. One example, Fred owns a house. He marries John in a State that allows same sex marriages. If he puts John on the deed, it’s a taxable gift of half the value of the house. If John is a Jane. It’s tax-free. > [@](#): > > Wrong. Property transfer is ENTIRELY a matter of state law. Taxation and transfer are separate subjects No. They are pretty intrinsically entwined, as my example illustrates. > [@](#): > > Sure, now show me one of those regulations that makes a lick of difference. Go on. The spousal impovershment act. Social Security benefits Spousal pension rights > [@](#): > > On NDEA, it was the Republicans who overwhelmingly rejected gay rights. Kindly explain how that fits into your fantasy of a Republican Party where the Log Cabin Republicans are valued and respected members. You’re doing it again. I can only assume you’re deliberately lying when you falsely attribute arguments to me that I have not made. I have engaged in no such fantasy, and I have readily and repeatedly conceded that my party leaves a lot to be desired on the issue of of Gay rights. Your assertion to the contrary is a blatant falsehood. Just because you’re deluding yourself about your party’s failings doesn’t mean that I’m deluding myself about mine. The main tactic of your party is to lie and demonize their opponents. The homophobia in my party is largely a function of fear and ignorance. That can be corrected. Your party is fundamentally dishonest at the highest levels. That’s not so easily corrected. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879/117 "2002-11-18T15:03:48Z")
From your cite, here’s their list of the benefits of marriage, with my annotations in parentheses. They are overwhelmingly benefits provided under STATE law: > [@](#): > > A few of the rights triggered by legal marriage which are difficult or impossible to duplicate by other legal documents: > > Automatic Assumption of Spouse’s Pension (State and federal law. Not such a big deal anyway–simply dsignate a beneficiary.) > Automatic Inheritance (ENTIRELY A MATTER OF STATE LAW) > Automatic Housing Lease Transfer (ENTIRELY A MATTER OF STATE LAW) > Bereavement Leave (offered by some employers) (ENTIRELY A MATTER OF STATE LAW–the federal FMLA does not provide for “bereavement” leave) > Burial Determination (ENTIRELY A MATTER OF STATE LAW) > Certain Property Rights (Too vague to quantify, but property rights are almost exclusively a MATTER OF STATE LAW) > Child Custody (ENTIRELY A MATTER OF STATE LAW)O > Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits (ENTIRELY A MATTER OF STATE LAW) > Domestic Violence Protection (most cities won’t cover same-sex abuse) (ENTIRELY A MATTER OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW) > Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death (Federal law. Like I said, bummer.) > Immigration access for the foreign spouse of a U.S. citizen (Federal law.) > Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse (ENTIRELY A MATTER OF STATE LAW; the Federal Rules of Evidence recognize no such privilege) > Insurance Breaks (apartment car) (ENTIRELY A MATTER OF STATE LAW) > Joint Adoption (only NJ offers) and Foster Care (ENTIRELY A MATTER OF STATE LAW) > Joint Bankruptcy (All bankruptcy is federal law) > Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records) (ENTIRELY A MATTER OF STATE LAW) > Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner (ENTIRELY A MATTER OF STATE LAW) > Name Change if Desired (ENTIRELY A MATTER OF STATE LAW) > Reduced Rate Memberships (ENTIRELY A MATTER OF STATE LAW) > Sick Leave to Care for Partner (varies by employer) (State and federal law–FMLA on the fed side) > Visitation of Partner’s Children (ENTIRELY A MATTER OF STATE LAW) > Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison (State law for state prisons, federal law for federal prisons; hospitals are ENTIRELY A MATTER OF STATE LAW) > Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits (ENTIRELY A MATTER OF STATE LAW–witness the recent California civil suit over the dog mauling death in San Francisco) ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879/118 "2002-11-18T16:20:19Z")
I don’t see why you’re defending DOMA, or pretending it’s not so bad. Do you not see how it would make gays second class citizens not entitled to certain rights even in States where gay marriage was allowed? Things like being able to file jointly, and transfer property to a spouse without paying Federal Taxes would not be allowed. The spousal impovershment act which prevents community property and income from being anhiliated in the event of long terms sickness would not apply to gay couples. There would be no social security survivorship benefits. The concept of ownership of retirement assets upon spousals death as well as continuation of benefits under COBRA would be at issue. Alimony would probably be unenforceable for gays. * * * You first started off saying that the Democratic party doesn’t tolerate homophobia. You seem to have backed off that. You next said that all DOMA does is give states the option of whether to recognize other states’ same sex marriages should they become legal. You seem to have recognized that you missed the second half of the legislation. Now you are basically trying to argue that the Federal protections afforded to spouses, aren’t really that important, and the state will take care of it. You seem to forget that people sometimes have to move, and that people usually have businesses and dealings across state lines. You seem to be ignoring that Federal protections like the spousal impovershment act, and the right to transfer property to a spouse without paying taxes, and that continuation of benefits, and ownership of retirement assets are important protections. If you wish to salve your conscious and pretend it’s not so bad, and doesn’t convey second citizenship to gays at the Federal level, be my guest. I do not share your delusion. At least you can console yourself with the fact that it was a Republican idea, even if your party went along with it. Thusly, you can continue to pretend that you’re holding some moral high ground, and continue to feel good by demonizing your political opponents. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879/119 "2002-11-18T17:27:44Z")
As far as DOMA is concerned, it is a disgustingly shameful blight on the national scene. I agree that the Democrats who voted for it stabbed us in the back. It was particularly odious that Wellstone voted for this travesty. However, it’s also important to note that _every, single_ “Nay” vote was cast by a Democrat. Not one Republican - **not one** - voted “Nay”. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is also a disgrace, but one forced upon Clinton by the Republicans. If you recall, Clinton’s original plan was to issue an executive order to completely rescind the military’s anti-gay policies. He compromised, I’m not happy with the compromise. But he did try, which is far better than the current administration that specifically excluded gay discharges from it “Stop-loss” order. **Bricker** , I will not retract, I’ll modify. DeLay is suspect on Civil Liberties accross the board. How’s that? You can argue as much as you want that the Democratic Party is not absolutely perfect on Gay Rights. However the Democratic support of DOMA is the exception. They are (perhaps were with the change in leadership) coming through on ENDA. S1284 has 45 Cosponsors (4 are Republican, 40 are Democrat and 1 Independent). HR 2692 has 194 cosponsors (21 are Republican, 172 are Democrat and 1 Independent). There is no arguement that the Democratic Party, even with the failure that is DOMA, is much more Gay-Accepting and far more likely to support Gay Positive legislation than the Republican Party. My point is that the election of DeLay is a striking blow against the idea that our hopes can be placed with the Republican Party in _any_ way. The Homophobes are in power in the Republican Party: Delay, Lott, Ashcroft, Bush Jr. Lott and DeLay, in particular, are **actively** anti-gay and they are the ones chosen by the membership for power. This speaks volumes to what the Republican Party, in general, supports. LRC members are deluding themselves to think that the Republican Leadership will listen to them. > [@](#): > > “The Republican Party has been completely demonized,” said [LRC President Rich] Tafel. “We are generally characterized as supporting [Senate Majority Leader] Trent Lott [R-Miss.].” This is delusion. Trent Lott is Senate Majority Leader. That _ **is** _ support. Tom Delay is House Majority Leader. That _ **is** _ support. By supporting the Republican Party, the LCR are helping to perpetuate oppression. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879/120 "2002-11-18T17:53:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Homebrew \* > \*\*However, it’s also important to note that _every, single_ “Nay” vote was cast by a Democrat. Not one Republican - **not one** - voted “Nay”. \*\* To nitpick, Steve Gunderson voted nay. While, admittedly, he is openly gay, there was one Republican who voted nay. I ask you again, what do you want the LCR to do? Should they abandon their party just because the people in charge are bigots? **Homebrew** , if the good people leave and the bad people stay, there’s no hope for the party. Yeah. there are bigots in the party, and, unfortunately, they’re in charge right now, but that’s changing, and among younger Republicans especially; more and more aren’t anti-gay, and, honestly, don’t care much. Things are getting better. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/log-cabin-republicans-what-s-wrong-with-these-queens/136879.md?page=7)