Pick the state most heavily controlled by Republicans and give us some facts to support your thesis. I have many Republican friends who have no issues with gays. And I think you will find many similarlly disposed Republicans on this board.
It’s unfortunate that some people cannot accept a differing political ideology as having any legitimacy.
Why should I consider as legitimate a political philosophy that seeks to jail me for whom I love? Why should I consider as legitimate a political philosophy whose leadership (Senate Policy Committee, Majority Leader of both houses, the President, Attorney General, ad naseum) sees me as less than equal? The GOP leadership is monolithic on this issue and for gay people to support them is as clear a manifestation of short-sighted selfishness as can be found. What good is your economic philosophy if you end up jailed for your love life? What good is favorable tax policy for families, if you’re not allowed to be a family legally?
If the LCR had any influence and if there were evidence that there is actually debate among the Republican leadership on this issue, I could cut them some slack. But it’s clear that the Republican part is in the hands of the religious right and even the moderates are too beholden and too craven to stand up for what is right and just.
Oh, how hard it is to be you with the slings and nerf arrows of outrageous fortune.
Do you really need a list of ranking Republicans who not only are anti-gay and very public about it, but who also make sure to vote against anything which could give us parity? Are you so polarized that you put blinders on, or do you just not care?
So what are the LCRs options? At this point, their numbers aren’t big enough to have meaningful input on the Republican party’s decisions, but if they jumped ship to the Dems, they’d be marginalized for their fiscal/gov’t views. My guess is that they subscribe to the Goldwater-y “belief that government should stay out of people’s private lives” theory, even though there’s a disconnect between theory and practice.
Call me stubborn, but I would have too much self respect to vote for somebody who would call me evil and inferior, even if their other political beliefs align perfectly with mine. Frankly, I’d rather suffer from the effects of a worse economic policy and be eating out of a dumpster as a consequence than do that.
You’ll have to show me where in the Republican Party Platform there is anything that would put gays in jail. There is a world of difference between saying that gays should not be allowed to marry (as do many Dems, also) and advocating the jailing of gays for sexual acts.
Need I remind you that it was Clinton who signed the “Defense of Marriage Act”?
And that his wife, current senator from New York and certainly a well known democrat has opposed, in interviews, marriage status for gay unions.
I was trying not to rub it in too much.
Big fucking deal. Why must you resort to a red herring? Clinton support civil unions, if not marriage. The Republicans oppose even that, vigorously. Besides, she’s not the current majority leader, president nor even a lowly whip.
Actually several dopers on these very boards have said that “marriage” status for gay unions is a big deal, that assigning “civil union” status to gay unions, but not marriages is akin to second class recognition.
With regards to Senator Clinton, are you suggesting that she’s not a very significant person in the democratic party?
Hmm. Ask the average Joe on the street who the newest senator from New York is. Then ask who the current minority whip is…wonder which one gets more correct answers 
In terms of a “public face” for the party, Ms. Clinton is certainly high profile.
Although since you DID bring up the majority leader in the Senate, let’s see if he favors marriage status for gays, shall we?
Survey says…not likely
(This was said at a news conference about Bush’s proposal…but it’s hard to read Daschle’s comments and think that he favors granting “marriage” status to gay unions)
As far as Tom’s voting record…oops
Since you did mention the Senate whip…let’s take a gander at Harry Reid’s stand on the issue.
Ooops.
Thanks for find cites to support my position. I know that the sorry-assed Republican leadership opposes gay marriage AND civil unions. I started this thread because of that. So what “oops” could you possibly be taking about?
The Clintons may not support allowing gay people to marriage, but they do support civil unions. So I’ll take the lesser of two evils, thank you very much. Bringing the Clintons into the discussion is a red herring because you’re trying to deflect attention from the issue of the OFFICIAL Republican Policy to the views - disparagable but less onerous - of two individuals.
I can’t find confirmation of this, but according to this site:
http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/texas/txeditorial03.htm
If this is true, then it indicates to me that at least the Texas GOP and our current pres would happily put gay people in jail.
Huh. With all of your talk about “civil unions”, I see ummm not one mention of civil unions in the OP. The Planet Out piece talks about marriage.
Your follow-up comments talk about marriage .
Can you show me one instance in your OP that even mentions “civil unions”?
Since you’re criticizing (fairly enough) one political party for its stance and actions against gay marriages…it’s reasonable to wonder why you give the other major political party a “pass”…when its leaders and ALSO are opposed to gay marriage? That was the entire premise of your OP…that gay Republicans belong to a political party that doesn’t treat their unions as equal to heterosexual unions.
Why do you presume I give the Democrats a “pass” on the issue? However, there is a significant difference between DOMA, which some Democrats voted for and current OFFICIAL Republican Policy. DOMA, IMHO, violates the spirit of Full Faith by saying that one state can’t be forced to accept the marriages of another. The amendment proposed by the Republicans seeks to OUTLAW marriages for all gay people throughout the entire US regardless of the individual states’ positions.
Do you really want to debate which party is less gay-friendly? How about some recent OFFICIAL party statements from the Democratic Naional Committee:
The Republican Party’s official platform specifically supports the Boy Scouts of America’s right to discriminate. A simple glance at the co-sponsors of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, should also sufficiently disabase you of the idea that there is no difference in the way the parties approach gay issues.
Because in this thread (and another thread in the pit covering similar territory), any mention of positions held by Democrats hostile toward gay marriage was dismissed by you as irrelevant or a red herring.
Perhaps I was in error though, and you can correct my perception.
Are you on record as “not” giving Democrats a pass? Will you call those Democrats to task (Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid et al) who are opposed to marriage status for gay unions (since again, that is what the Planet Out bit and your follow up were about)?
FTR, I’m not defending the position of Republicans either. I’m just noticing (like John Mace, I think) that the anti-“marriage status” attitude has unfortunately broad appeal.
Dave: Yes, I’m pretty much with you on this. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the marriage issue for gays, I think many of the Dems are pretty shameless in their position. I would bet $$ that Hilary is actually in favor of gay marriage, but won’t come out on that side of the issue (pardon the pun) because she know’s it doesn’t fly in the polls. So if you’re gay and for gay marriage, who’s worse: Bush, who at least stands by his beliefs, or Hillary who will sacrifice you for expediency for her own personal ambition?
Try rewording it without the right-wing slant, eh? “So if you’re gay and for gay marriage, who’s worse: Bush, who adamantly will not support gay marriage in any way, shape, or form, or Hillary, who is sympathetic to your cause but doesn’t dare speak out in favor of it in public?”
LOL and that’s a “neutral” slant?
I think it’s a matter of the difference between official Republican Party policy and individual Democratic politicians’ opinions. I’m not a member of either party. But given the choice between a party the official policy of which is that I, because of my sexual orientation, am a second-class (if that) citizen and whose policy machinery has been all but hijacked by a band of religious fanatics who hate me with a passion and a party the official policy of which at least pays lip service to and makes at least half-hearted attempts at recognizing my equality of rights, I think I’ll choose the latter.
I’ve never been good at doing the whole “Go cut a switch for your own punishment” thing…
This is a perfect example of the “doctrinaire” thought of the idiot wing of both parties. They think that if you agree with one platform of the party, then they must agree with all of it.
Log Cabin Republicans accept the fact that the party as a whole rejects their lifestyle. They feel that the good done by the party’s policies outwiegh the bad.
Democrats do exactly the same thing. One of the outrages de jour is the nuns in Colorado who are being sent to prison for hammering on some ICBM silos. While being completely behind them, I don’t hear any voices saying that these same women oppose abortion with the whole of their hearts.
I do not understand the thinking of people who live by a political code, but I understand completely the aforementioned nuns and the Log Cabin Republicans.