^^ an example of a group of gays who have good reason to vote republican.
So, if I present litigation against gay discrimination that they’ve aided, or legislation that their PAC has asked for, you’ll withdraw your charge that they are a fake group?
- Rick
No, just some of them: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/GOPCVN_Kolbe000801.html
Of course, that such crap is tolerated at all is a big chunk of why I’m a Democrat.
It’s kind of odd in my mind. Democrats and Republicans seem to have the most “fuzziness” about whether they support major planks of their party, especially in social issues. It seems odd, because you can generally predict a huge range of a voter’s personal beliefs if (s)he’s a Libertarian or Green or Communist, but not necessarily with our two major political parties. Of course, it begs the eternal question of just how much the Democrats, say, really believe in preserving the environment, or the Republicans in bringing God back into the country, and how much of it is just lip service to those they believe they can court at the polls reliably.
Of course, I too have never been able to understand how some people of any one of a number of categories (like the group that brought up this thread) can vote for a party they know full well not only DO NOT CARE about them, but would just as soon disenfranchise them if they could. But then, that’s what this thread is here for…
It’s kind of sad, though, that we have a system where it’s so hard to find a single group that encompasses enough of what many many people believe in…
No. Not aided. Sponsored and got passed or got their party to support. Come up with. Not said me too that some liberal group came up with, but took the lead. Got that? Took the lead and got it done, or at least kept on pushing against all odds. Something to indicate that they aren’t a front group, or should I say “beard”. I think we can all agree that these men (mostly) are really gay, and that they are really Republican. But I think the most you will be able to come up with is that they will have joined another more effective gay rights group in supporting some small proposals, or more likely offering watered down versions of real reforms supported by other gay rights groups. That’s undermining the gay rights agenda.
So Bricker, I’ll take it back if you can come up with a log cabin success story for gay rights, if you will agree with me that they are a front if you cannot. I presume you have something significant to offer.
Interesting. So your evaluation of political parties is based, at least in part, on how much “crap” they tolerate. Is that a fair statement? If so then if someone like, say, Al Sharpton (do I need to remind you of the “crap” he has perpetrated? Do you want cites?) is given a speaking slot at the 2004 Democratic convention, will you quit the party? Just asking…
Log Cabin Republicans support the election or appointment of gay-friendly Republicans to legislatures and courts. Obviously, Democrats are not doing that.
When enough gay-friendly Democrats and Republicans hold office, then changes can be effected. You want instant results, buy a magic wand.
And the fact that Democrats at their convention publicly jeered at children is why I’m not a Democrat.
Awwww, c’mon december! You wouldn’t be a Democrat is the Dove landed on Gore’s shoulder and said “This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased”. You’d probably tear it open looking for the hidden speaker.
Just out of curiosity… what was being tolerated? What should have been done differently by whom?
From that link of yours it says (referring to Bush:)
Doesn’t look like Bush was being tolerant of that group.
When asked about Kolbe’s speech we had this:
A couple of crackers acted in an embarassing fashion. That seems to me the sum total of the incident. It doesn’t say how many people took part in bowing their heads, just “some delegates from Texas.” How many is that?
Making a big issue about this kind of thing is one of the reasons that I’m a Republican.
It’s getting harder and harder for me to see what the hell it is liberalism and democrats stand for. Mostly it seems they just stand against Republicans on general principles, and rather than engage on the issues they prefer to demonize their opponents.
Lots of people, Democrat and Republican are intolerant. Every Democrat that voted for DOMA committed a far more intolerant act, than a couple of crackers bowing their heads in prayer. “Don’t ask, Don’t tell,” was also far more intolerant.
Yet, you would choose to ignore all of this, and use the silent protest of a couple of Texas crackers as an excuse to characterize the entire Republican party as intolerant of gays and catering to hateful elements.
This false demonization, and mischaracterization by Democrats seems to be their major weapon and Raison D’etre.
Redact “crap.” Insert “homophobia.” Thus altered, I stand by my statement. Your party tolerates homophobia; mine does not.
Note also that Bush the Yonger’s election-year lip service to gay Republicans is entirely at odds with the exclusion of the Log Cabin Republicans from the 1996 Republican Party of Texas Convention. See Republican Party of Texas v. Dietz, 924 S.W.2d 932 (Tex. 1996); Republican Party of Texas v. Dietz, 940 S.W.2d 86 (Tex. 1997).
So there are no homophobic Democrats? Wow, really?
I guess signing Doma wasn’t tolerating intolerance, was it?
I guess “don’t ask, don’t tell.” wasn’t tolerating intolerance?
I mentioned this to you in my previus post. You ignored it and just repeated yourself with the blanket demonization and mischaracterization that I’ve accused you of.
Do you wish to engage on how these two issues are not examples of “tolerating intolerance?” Do you wish to withdraw your statement? Or, do you simply wish to ignore it, and pretend that your party is maintaining some kind of moral high ground?
Uh huh. Then how do you explain that the majority of Democrats in Congress and the lip-service paying (and receiving, a-hem) Democratic president signed on to the homophobic Defense of Marriage Act?
- The Republican Party of Texas in 1996 speaks for the entire Republican Party in 2002?
- What was the status of the Log Cabin Republicans at the most recent convention of the Texas Republican Party?
- Has the Democratic National Platform condemned DOMA and the exclusion of open homosexuals from military service? No? Then it tolerates homophobia, doesn’t it?
- In May 2002, when three Democratic Congressmen (Ralph Hall, David Phelps, and Ronnie Shows) co-sponsored a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages, were they condemned by the Democratic Party?
George W. Bush’s record on gays over the past two years has right-winger Chuck Baldwin up in arms.
Scylla: “Don’t ask don’t tell” was a massive improvement over the military’s previous policy–supported by your party–of actively identifying and eliminating gay and lesbian members of the military. It’s far from an ideal solution, of course, but at leas my party took some affirmative steps towards improving a crappy situation. Your party preferred the crappy situation as it was.
As for your complaint about “blanket demonization,” I think I’ll merely refer you to the 2000 Republican platform:
Compare and contrast with the platform of my party:
So it ain’t marriage, but at least my party wants to do something to make the benefits of marriage available to gays and lesbians; yours has no comparable provision anywhere in its platform (no surprise there–you’d lose half your voters). And whereas my party wants to legally prohibit orientation-based discrimination in employment, housing, etc., your party explicitly says that such discrimination is fine with them. Feh.
Yep, your party tolerates homophobia. Hell, your party coddles homophobia. Mine ain’t perfect, but it a damn sight better on gay rights. Nevertheless, I encourage you and other Republicans (including the LCR) to work to end that bigotry. It might even work. I just ain’t holding my breath.
Walloon, the key question you have to ask yourself is Who was the governor of Texas in 1996? Answer that and you’ll see why I cited that case.
I wouldn’t even bother to look, being an atheist. However, I was a Democrat until about age 30. I worked actively for Eugene McCarthy and for George McGovern.
Oh, I know quite well who was the governor. And what was his stand on the issue? In 1998, George W. Bush admonished state party leaders to stop “name-calling” after a party executive said the Texas GOP did not want “a group of transvestites, cross-dressers or Log Cabins.” And in 2000, Bush decided not to attend the Republican State Convention in Houston, four years after the party denied him a governor’s traditional role of leading the state delegation to the GOP National Convention.
“Name-calling” is unseemly. But did W. say or do anything to get the LCR into the 1996 convention? Heck no.
1996? Ah yes, that was the year President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act.