Quantcast

«

»

Oct 25 2012

Log Cabin Republicans Endorse Romney

It will certainly come as no surprise that the Log Cabin Republicans, the largest gay Republican group in the country, has endorsed Mitt Romney for president. Their absurd reasoning will certainly not shock you either:

“The decision to endorse is the right one for our members, our community, and for the nation as a whole,” said Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director, R. Clarke Cooper. “Despite our disagreement with Governor Romney on the issue of marriage, on balance it is clear that in today’s economic climate, concern for the future of our country must be the highest priority. We are Republicans, and we agree with Governor Romney’s vision for America in which success is a virtue, equal opportunity is ensured, and leaders recognize that it is the American people, not government, that build our nation and fuel its prosperity. On issues of particular concern to the LGBT community, we believe Governor Romney will move the ball forward compared to past Republican presidents. No matter who is in the White House, it is crucial our community always has a credible voice speaking out on behalf of LGBT Americans. Log Cabin Republicans will be that voice to President Mitt Romney.”

People for the American Way details Romney’s anti-gay policies and record:

Romney supports a constitutional amendment prohibiting gays and lesbians from marrying. Romney opposed the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. He signed the National Organization for Marriage’s pledge to defend DOMA, put Washington DC’s marriage equality law up to a popular vote, and establish a presidential commission to “investigate harassment of traditional marriage supporters.” Romney has promised to nominate Supreme Court Justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who dissented in the two major gay rights decisions of the past 20 years. And his main advisor on judicial nominations is the infamous Robert Bork, who has compared gay rights to child molestation.

And remember, anyone Romney would nominate for the courts will certainly be far more destructive of the equal rights of gay people than anyone Obama nominates. This endorsement sounds a lot like Stockholm Syndrome, doesn’t it?

85 comments

1 ping

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Tabby Lavalamp

    It’s all about the money. Their other rights can wait, as long as they can make as much money as they can now. It’s very short-sighted.

  2. 2
    magistramarla

    Stockholm Syndrome is right. The same goes for any woman who would be insane enough to vote for Romney.

  3. 3
    Michael Heath

    I bet this group has portraits of Clarence Thomas, Roy Cohn, and Phyllis Schlafly hanging on their wall.

  4. 4
    Chiroptera

    This, I just don’t understand.

    I mean, sure, I can understand that one would be willing to make some self-sacrifice for the greater good — there is nothing necessarily wrong with voting against some of one’s own self-interests.

    But we are talking about voting for people who would deny the voters own right to exist as a free and equal human being. I mean, what policies could the Republicans be proposing that would be worth a voter denying his or her own right to life, liberty, or the persuit of happiness?

    Either the Log Cabin Republicans must believe that the Democrats are so insanely evil that they must be stopped, even at the cost of their own livelihoods…or they must think they are white and privileged enough to be able to escape the worst of their party’s worst homophobic excesses.

  5. 5
    trucreep

    It seems similar to atheists voting for religious candidates.

  6. 6
    naturalcynic

    We are Republicans, and we agree with Governor Romney’s vision for America in which success is a virtue, …

    Success, by itself, is a virtue for these twits – which contains countless instances of success without virtue.

  7. 7
    Michael Heath

    trucreep writes:

    It seems similar to atheists voting for religious candidates.

    Given your use of a weasal word even you don’t appear to believe the two come from the same defective logic.

  8. 8
    Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)

    I know a lesbian Republican. She considers herself “potential member of the 1%” first, and “lesbian” a distant second.

  9. 9
    hexidecima

    to be blunt, it takes pure stupidity to vote for someone who hates you. These idiots deserve exactly what they seem to want, being considered worthy of death by such an enormous amount of jackasses.

  10. 10
    Raging Bee

    On issues of particular concern to the LGBT community, we believe Governor Romney will move the ball forward compared to past Republican presidents.

    And that belief is based on…what? Pure craven wishful thinking?

  11. 11
    TGAP Dad

    It’s not really so much Romney who scares me as his cabal, especially the foreign policy types (hi, John Bolton!) As Molly Ivins once said “you got to dance with them that brung you.”

  12. 12
    jamessweet

    In fairness, if we assume for a moment that Romney really is going to magically heal the economy, and that Obama really is the disaster that Republicans make him out to be, there could be a strong argument for preferring Romney despite his dismal record on LGBT rights. Not everyone is a single-issue voter.

    Of course, LCR is still dangerously wrong with this endorsement. But they are wrong for the same reasons that anybody, gay or straight, would be wrong to back Romney on the notion that he’s a better choice for the economy.

  13. 13
    Gregory in Seattle

    This post made me realize that people don’t use the word “quisling” as often as they probably should.

  14. 14
    davidhart

    Trucreep@5: “It seems similar to atheists voting for religious candidates.”

    Not very similar. In many elections at all levels of government in the USA, including the presidency, there are no (openly) non-religious candidates, so an atheist who wants to vote for a non-religious candidate is stuck with picking the less religious candidate (assuming all other factors are equal), and will simply have to take part in the long, slow struggle to overturn the climate of atheophobia that makes it almost impossible to get elected as an open atheist, until some day in the future they can vote for one.

    Whereas in this year’s presidential election, there is one candidate who has officially endorsed gay marriage, and one who is not merely against it; the very idea of it seems to make him uncomfortable talking about it. That is a genuine choice, and it is very odd that someone would vote for the candidate that explicitly advocates second-class citizenship for them over the candidate who supports equal rights.

  15. 15
    Chiroptera

    trucreep, #5: It seems similar to atheists voting for religious candidates.

    No, it’s not.

    What it seems similar to is an atheist voting for candidates who support establishing state support for their religious beliefs, including permitting discrimination and even punitive sanctions against non-believers.

  16. 16
    eric

    Raging Bee @10: cynically, this quote may be correct.

    I don’t think Romney gives one whit about this issue. I think he pretty much only cares about corporate deregulation and lowering high-end taxes. So, where some earlier republicans were actively anti-gay rights, Romney is probably more passively anti-gay rights. If he simply gives the issue a low priority and never does anything about it during his administration, he can probably truthfully be said to have ‘moved the ball forward compared to past Republican presidents.’ Because they tried to move the ball backwards, and zero movement is better than that.

    Maybe the LCRs think this – that Romney will just not do anything about it, and that lack of caring is relatively better than past choices. If so, I think they’re making a big mistake. Even if he does nothnig else at all related to gay rights – neither for or against – if he picks a surpreme court justice, they have to know that he’ll pick a staunch social conservative.

  17. 17
    Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)

    @eric, #16:

    Thus making this the one issue Mitt Romney isn’t on both sides of. How odd.

  18. 18
    NitricAcid

    It’s more like an atheist voting for a theocrat.

    Anyway, it doesn’t surprise me that the LGReps are supporting Romney. I’d be interesting in learning, however, how many of them there are, and if that number has decreased lately.

  19. 19
    Who Knows?

    I think Tabby @1 has it. They are not really concerned about LGBT issues, and certainly aren’t thinking of marriage. They are no longer being thrown in jail and most cities have protections against employment and housing discrimination. They get to live their lives pretty much as they please.

    So it comes down to who they think they can make them more money and tax them less over the next four years.

  20. 20
    NitricAcid

    LCReps, not LGReps.

  21. 21
    loren

    So a Republican organization, with “Republican” right there in its name, endorsed the Republican for President. And some folks don’t seem to understand how this happened.

    It’s not like this is, say, the Stonewall Conservatives or the Laissez-Faire Lesbians. It’s quite specifically a *Republican* group.

    Ergo, it stands to reason that if there were members who prioritized gay issues over the Republican platform, to the point of not supporting Republicans for office, then they’ve likely already left the organization. And who’s left in charge? Die-hard, party-line Republicans.

  22. 22
    Chiroptera

    loren, #21: And some folks don’t seem to understand how this happened.

    If you read carefully, you’ll see that we do undertand how. But our explanations about how may be different than your explanations.

    -

    Ergo, it stands to reason that if there were members who prioritized gay issues over the Republican platform, to the point of not supporting Republicans for office…

    We’re not talking about mere “priorities,” we’re talking about supporting candidates who support policies that would severly impact these particular persons’ very well-being.

    -

    …, then they’ve likely already left the organization.

    And the question is, why wasn’t that all of them? Probably because:

    -

    And who’s left in charge? Die-hard, party-line Republicans.

    That’s a pretty charitable description.

    Me, I think more likely either stupidest of the stupid, or perhaps the greediest of the greedy who think they’ll benefit more from the tax cuts while whatever wealth they hope to achieve will insulate them from the policies that will ravage the lives of those who are less able to escape the results of Republicans’ policies.

  23. 23
    trucreep

    Damn y’all I get that it’s not the exact same thing, just seems similar when atheists or even anti-theists vote for candidates that are neutral or pro religion.

    It might help reconcile everyone flipping out over the Log Cabin Republicans voting for Republicans.

  24. 24
    laurentweppe

    This endorsement sounds a lot like Stockholm Syndrome, doesn’t it?

    No it’s not: The GOP is not anti-homosexuality: the GOP is against treating sexual freedom as an universal right and wants to keep it as a privilege reserved to the nobility. so long as you’re an upper-class gay, you’re okay in their book.

    Sure, in Romney’s pefect world, as an upper-class gay, you may have to do a few sacrifices: enter a loveless mariage and produce an heir if you don’t have enough siblings to carry on the bloodline; refrain from “displaying” your homosexuality where the plebs can see you , and also shut down your empathy every time someone from the lower class gets imprisoned, beaten, raped, killed, etc… because they were gay or accused of being so.
    .
    But do not worry: today’s technology makes the process of mating optional, socio-spatial segregation will create many commoners-free places for you to live and enjoy your life, and insular media and epistemic closure will allow you to ignore the plight of other people without having to be a sociopath regarding the rest of mankind as cardboard cut-outs

  25. 25
    baal

    Quite the contrary trucreep @23. We’re not surprised; we’re doubting the thinking methods of the LCR members. It strains credulity to think that they have really considered the consequences to themselves of their support for the republicans.

  26. 26
    revjimbob

    Just another example of the Republicans convincing people to vote against their own self interest.

  27. 27
    Aratina Cage

    The Log Cabin Republicans are traitors! To throw their vote behind someone who has called for an amendment banning our family ties is beyond disgusting.

  28. 28
    savagemutt

    So a Republican organization, with “Republican” right there in its name, endorsed the Republican for President. And some folks don’t seem to understand how this happened.

    To be fair, they did refuse to endorse their party’s nominee in 1992 and 2004. So says Wikipedia.

  29. 29
    trucreep

    Fair enough baal @25. I’d say they probably have thought this out, as an LGBT group in the GOP, they probably understand they have to take things one step at a time. Otherwise, if they support the democratic candidate, they’re probably going to have a hard time being taken seriously in the GOP.

  30. 30
    shripathikamath

    This endorsement sounds a lot like Stockholm Syndrome, doesn’t it?

    No, it sounds quintessentially Republican.

  31. 31
    slc1

    The Log Cabin Rethuglicans are reminiscent of the Uncle Toms in the Afro-American community.

  32. 32
    shripathikamath

    To be fair, they did refuse to endorse their party’s nominee in 1992 and 2004. So says Wikipedia.

    Then they came to their senses. Think about that. They preferred Kerry over Bush, but not Obama over McPalin.

    I am not a big fan of Obama for his weasel-efforts for gay rights, but how do you vote for someone who states that he was against DADT repeal, and his opponent at least gets the credit for signing it into law?

    It’s like slaves rooting for Jefferson Davis because Lincoln was willing to tear the country apart.

  33. 33
    jayarrrr

    Oh, those crazy Log Cabins, always thinking about their portfolios… makes time pass better in the closet when you have a fat, successful investment portfolio to read during the long lonely nights…

  34. 34
    Modusoperandi

    And if they don’t endorse their guy, what would happen? Should Romney run scared, knowing that he’d stand to lose tens and tens of votes?

    Michael Heath “I bet this group has portraits of Clarence Thomas, Roy Cohn, and Phyllis Schlafly hanging on their wall.”
    Ah! The Devil’s three-way!

  35. 35
    timberwoof

    Yes, I’m going there: the Log Cabin Rethuglicans are like the German industrialists during WWII who endorsed and cooperated with the legal government while pretending to try to do something about those awful Nazis.

    Although the LCR keep getting thrown under the Cadillac (Rethuglicans don’t ride buses), they still believe that they benefit more from the Party’s economic polices than they are harmed by its social policies.

  36. 36
    democommie

    “It might help reconcile everyone flipping out over the Log Cabin Republicans voting for Republicans.”

    Why would it?

    The fact that a group of people who are not only actively and openly legislated against by their own people voting for the party has exactly nothing to do with a person who is aereligious voting for someone who is religious when they are not offered an alternative.

    The LCR are fucking pathethic.

  37. 37
    coragyps

    “Governor Romney’s vision for America in which….equal opportunity is ensured,”

    whiskey? tango? foxtrot?

    But they did leave out that pesky “for all” part, I guess.

  38. 38
    Draken

    I’ve wondered about gays being in the GOP before, but I think I’m beginning to understand:

    The one thing that binds Republicans of all plumage together is a fierce denial of reality.

  39. 39
    williamgeorge

    “There was two kind of slaves. There was the house negro and the field negro. The house negro, they lived in the house, with master. They dressed pretty good. They ate good, cause they ate his food, what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near their master, and they loved their master, more than their master loved himself.”

    - Malcolm X

  40. 40
    Jafafa Hots

    Hell, my little city in the San Francisco Bay Area has a man on the city council (who takes turns serving as mayor) who is gay and a TEA PARTIER.

    Sarah Palin pics all over his Facebook page.

    The old saying is wrong. It doesn’t actually “take all kinds,” but we get all kinds anyway.

  41. 41
    WMDKitty -- Survivor

    Being a gay (or female) Republican is like being a black Klansman or a Jewish Nazi…

  42. 42
    trucreep

    democommie @36

    I was thinking more of them going about changing things their own way. I see it as they’re a Republican group, they’re probably trying to show that there are LGBT Republicans. I get that this is not how most LGBT fight for their rights, and seems counter productive to them. But it seems like the Log Cabin Republicans are going about change their own way. Not endorsing the Republican nominee would probably be counter productive to their cause.

    As far as it being similar to an atheist voting for a religious candidate – I think there are alternatives. You don’t HAVE to vote Republican or Democrat. But you also don’t HAVE to vote based on a single issue.

    Calling the LCR “fucking pathetic” doesn’t seem fair. It seems the opposite of skeptical/critical thinking. It’s easy to have a shitty attitude towards someone you disagree with or towards a decision you disagree with. I don’t think you learn anything that way though.

  43. 43
    kevinkirkpatrick

    WMDKitty,

    I agree with your sentiment. However, I think comparing how modern-day Republicans treat the LGTB community to how the KKK treated blacks is overly hyperbolic, and might be off-putting to those in the black community. I officially defer to black people to comment on that directly, but my rule of thumb with analogies is to read them backwards and see if they still hold. In this case: “the lynching of blacks 100 years ago (and associated lack of law-enforcement response) was pretty much like modern-day Republican men and women voting to restrict marital rights of gays” … I dunno, to me it sounds very white-priviledged.

  44. 44
    kevinkirkpatrick

    Blech, hit “submit” too quickly… my comment obviously extends to comparing the Nazi extermination of Jews in death camps to the Republican denial of end-of-life visitation rights to gay men and women.

  45. 45
    Ichthyic

    We are Republicans, and we agree with Governor Romney’s vision for America in which success is a virtue, equal opportunity is ensured

    whoah, that’s some serious cognitive dissonance there.

    I’d recommend a visit to a mental health therapist immediately.

  46. 46
    Ichthyic

    Calling the LCR “fucking pathetic” doesn’t seem fair.

    it doesn’t??

    so, an organization that deliberately encourages voting against it’s own best interests should not be called pathetic?

    huh.

    strangely, pathetic is exactly the term I would use.

    it encourages my sympathies that they are indeed SO pathetic, they can no longer see where their best interests lie, or else they are simply lying about what interests their group represents.

    either way, I feel the word pathetic fits quite well.

  47. 47
    Ichthyic

    The GOP is not anti-homosexuality

    I’ve looked at the published platforms of both the national and many states’ GoP parties.

    based on those, you’re wrong.

  48. 48
    trucreep

    Ichthyic,

    I’d argue a Republican organization arguing voting Republican is not encouraging a vote against it’s own interests. I don’t think you take into account the idea that they are Republicans. You’re on here acting like you’re the one who decides what their interests are. You need to settle down and not be so set on your opinion being the absolute and only way to do things. It’s fine to disagree or think there’s a better way to achieve a certain goal, but if you can’t even entertain a different way of thinking, you come off like an asshole. AND that’s like being the opposite of a skeptic :|

    I mean, if anything, the LCR is the opposite of pathetic for being open and honest about their views and ideals. They align with the Republican party in various ways, and they’re LGBT. You’re almost insinuating they shouldn’t bother. Why shouldn’t they support their party’s candidate?? They want to change the Republican party as Republicans. TAKE OFF YER BLINDDDDDDDDS

  49. 49
    WMDKitty -- Survivor

    Okay, bad analogy on my part.

    The point is, it’s freakin’ bizarre for people, in this case, LGBT folks, to actively join up with their oppressors (the GOP/Religious Right) and actively help to keep the oppressors in power.

  50. 50
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    WhoKnows? @19:

    I think Tabby @1 has it. They are not really concerned about LGBT issues, and certainly aren’t thinking of marriage

    It’s possible this is an (or *the*) answer.
    Years ago, during the ’08 election season, I worked with a lesbian couple who swore they would never vote for Obama. When I asked them about gay marriage, they said they didn’t care because they didn’t want to get married. I didn’t know enough at the time to refute what they were saying. Now, I’d say this isn’t about marriage, it’s about NOT denying citizens of the United States full rights. It’s about not treating queers as second class citizens.
    It’s about equality.
    Under a Romney presidency, I suspect he would do all he could to erode the progress of gay rights.

    As a gay man, I can’t understand why the Log Cabin Republicans would vote for Romney.

  51. 51
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    laurentweppe:

    No it’s not: The GOP is not anti-homosexuality: the GOP is against treating sexual freedom as an universal right and wants to keep it as a privilege reserved to the nobility.

    They aren’t anti-homosexual?
    What about all these damned attempts at keeping queers from complaining about harassment?
    What about all these attempts to amend the Constitution?
    What about the DOMA?

    Where exactly could it be said that the GOP is *pro* homosexuals?

  52. 52
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    trucreep:

    Calling the LCR “fucking pathetic” doesn’t seem fair.

    I don’t think it’s unfair at all.
    The GOP as it stands is actively denying the rights of queers throughout the US.
    They want us to never be able to get married.
    They want us back in the closet.
    They want us to not be able to visit our spouses in the hospital.
    They want us discriminated against.
    They don’t care that gay children are getting bullied and committing suicide.

    For a gay organization to affiliate with the Republican Party-as it currently stands-is leaps and bounds BEYOND fucking pathetic.

  53. 53
    Jafafa Hots

    I was just waiting for that “don’t compare one oppression to another oppression because the other is worse and undermines your argument” bullshit.

    Same kind of bullshit as those who claim Gowinning is some kind of admission of defeat.

    Comparing two examples of things to see if they are similar in KIND is NOT the same as claiming they are similar in DEGREE. Rejecting an argument on that basis because you believe the two things, kind and degree, to be inseparable is just a derailing tactic.

    Yes, that might upset some people, it might not be a good political tactic to win people over, but since when the fuck does politics have anything to do with truth?

  54. 54
    Ichthyic

    I’d argue a Republican organization arguing voting Republican is not encouraging a vote against it’s own interests

    but that’s NOT the issue here.

    the issue here, is an organization stating that they don’t agree with the very things the candidate they decided to vote for holds as his platform.

    that makes it pathetic.

  55. 55
    Jafafa Hots

    Edits: Gowinning should be Godwinning, and I probably should have used another phrase besides “comparing one oppression” etc. I should have instead said “comparing one case of joining your own oppressors with another case of joining your oppressors…” etc.

  56. 56
    Ichthyic

    I mean, if anything, the LCR is the opposite of pathetic for being open and honest about their views and ideals.

    LOL

    open? where? because they say they still don’t agree with Romney on issues of equality, yet in the very next sentence say that Romney is needed… for equality??? that the kind of “openness” you mean?

    with that kind of “openness” one is reminded of the old saying:

    “Don’t be so open-minded your brains fall out!”

    honest? to who? they aren’t even honest with themselves!

  57. 57
    democommie

    Trucreep:

    The LCR is not even recognized as being part of the GOP by a significant fraction of the membership.

    They’re fucking pathetic for all the reasons listed. If they truly don’t agree with all of the anti-gay rhetoric than they should have the courage to walk away. Today’s democratic party is close enough to Reagan’s GOP that they should be comfortable.

  58. 58
    Area Man

    …or they must think they are white and privileged enough to be able to escape the worst of their party’s worst homophobic excesses.

    Ding ding ding. We have a winner!

    I would modify this somewhat to say that the bonus in white male privilege and tax cuts they expect to get from the Republicans must outweigh the losses due to homophobia.

  59. 59
    Ichthyic

    I would modify this somewhat to say that the bonus in white male privilege and tax cuts they expect to get from the Republicans must outweigh the losses due to homophobia.

    then perhaps they should change the name of their organization to be more fitting to their unstated goals of maximizing self profits.

    I’m tired.

    suggestions for a better name than “Log Cabin Republicans”?

    how about just… republicans?

  60. 60
    trucreep

    I see it as LGBT Republicans taking a position on a social issue that is the opposite of their party’s. But they line up on most others, that’s why they identify as Republican. Just as you might line up with the President on many issues, and identify as a Democrat (or at least vote mostly Democrat), you probably disagree with his faith, and adopting a platform that recognizes God. You still endorse him (I’m guessing).

    I get what everyone is saying. I think a lot of Republicans have fucked up positions when it comes to a LOT of social issues, including the rights of LGBT. But I see the Log Cabin Republicans working to change their party, rather than change themselves. It might be a lost cause but I’m not convinced it’s pathetic. They’re Republicans, not Democrats. It makes sense to me that a lot of LGBT vote Democrat, but I can’t assume every LGBT person does. Even if they can’t agree with their party’s stance on this issue, that doesn’t mean they can’t vote for a Republican. It feels like people can’t allow different ways of going about change.

    I understand I’m not going to convince anyone of my position, I just hope y’all will take a step back and try not to be so quick to just getting nasty. B]

  61. 61
    dingojack

    Trucreep (#3 et al.)-
    Nah, I voted for Julia ‘I won’t be lectured by this man’ Gillard.
    :) Dingo

  62. 62
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    trucreep @60:

    But I see the Log Cabin Republicans working to change their party, rather than change themselves.

    If they truly believe *that*, they’re delusional.

    The GOP platform doesn’t recognize queers as having equal rights. How are they supposed to enact any changes if the organization they want to change doesn’t recognize them as equals?

  63. 63
    Ichthyic

    I see it as LGBT Republicans taking a position on a social issue that is the opposite of their party’s.

    FFS, it’s not just A social issue, it’s WHO THEY ARE.

    it’s not like they decided to vote against Obamacare because they prefer their private insurers, damnit.

  64. 64
    Ichthyic

    But I see the Log Cabin Republicans working to change their party,

    it’s tail wag dog time!

  65. 65
    Ichthyic

    I understand I’m not going to convince anyone of my position

    then why did you bother? if even YOU know your position is nonsense…

  66. 66
    laurentweppe

    pleasantWhere exactly could it be said that the GOP is *pro* homosexuals?

    Where did I write that?
    Oh, yeah, nowhere
    It must be pleasant to bash a fictional person, considering how often it is done.

  67. 67
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    laurentweppe:

    Where did I write that?
    Oh, yeah, nowhere
    It must be pleasant to bash a fictional person, considering how often it is done.

    You said:

    No it’s not: The GOP is not anti-homosexuality: the GOP is against treating sexual freedom as an universal right and wants to keep it as a privilege reserved to the nobility.

    I think they *are* anti-homosexual.
    I followed that with examples of *how* they’re anti-homosexual.

    If you assert that they aren’t “anti-”, and we know based on their comments, that they’re not indifferent to homosexuals, doesn’t that leave “pro” homosexual (and obviously we know the GOP isn’t ProGay)? Which brings us back to the beginning of your comment: Yes, the GOP is anti-homosexuality.

  68. 68
    tomh

    laurentweppe wrote:
    The GOP is not anti-homosexuality.

    Have you looked at the national Republican platform?

    According to its platform, the Republican Party wants to reinstate Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in the military. The platform also affirms the party’s support for the Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids federal recognition of legal same-sex marriages. The effect of DOMA is to codify the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors’ benefits, and over 1000 other federal benefits, rights, and privileges that depend on marital status.

    The GOP platform also criticizes efforts by the Obama administration to oppose laws in African countries that criminalize homosexuality, some of which include prison time and even execution as punishment for homosexuality. The GOP platform says the Obama administration is “imposing the homosexual rights agenda” on “the peoples of Africa” by trying to change them.

    How do you rationalize these GOP positions with your claim that “The GOP is not anti-homosexuality.”

  69. 69
    laurentweppe

    Have you looked at the national Republican platform?

    Yes, and should this platform be applied, the consequences would be that lower and middle-class gays would suffer, while members of the upper-class who happen to be gays will have easy ways to avoid suffering.
    The attitude of the GOP regarding homosexuality is the same than its attitude regarding extra-marital sex, abortion and budget deficit: they put an aggressive stance against these in their platforms because it’s a convenient way to justify the kind of social order they want to impose, but these stances were never meant to be applied against the de facto aristocracy the GOP is working for.

  70. 70
    valhar2000

    I can’t decide what is more stupid: gay people voting for republicans, or people voting for republicans because “they have better economic policy”.

  71. 71
    =8)-DX

    However wrong supporting politicians for economic policy over rights issues might be, there is also I guess a kind of “working from inside” bent to this. The ideal state of affairs would have the voters of all political stripes on the side of equality (as well as women’s rights and other social issues).

  72. 72
    Stacy

    The attitude of the GOP regarding homosexuality is the same than its attitude regarding extra-marital sex, abortion and budget deficit: they put an aggressive stance against these in their platforms because it’s a convenient way to justify the kind of social order they want to impose, but these stances were never meant to be applied against the de facto aristocracy the GOP is working for.

    That’s it. And the LCRs are either members of that aristocracy (plutocracy, really) or aspire to it.

    It’s no more, or less, crazy than all the working class people who vote Republican. “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

  73. 73
    democommie

    What the LCR might want to consider is the status of the Capos during the Nazi Holocaust. They were the jewish “enforcers” used by the Nazis to police other jews into doing whatever the Nazis required. Whether this was due to the Nazis reluctance to deal directly with their captives or some perverse form of management is not clear. What is clear is that the capos always went into the crematoria last; but they always went.

    The LCR has not just given the GOP cover for their odious stance on gays and gay rights. They also have given them a list of exactly who to go after, later.

  74. 74
    Raging Bee

    …they still believe that they benefit more from the Party’s economic polices than they are harmed by its social policies.

    Those who benefit from Republican economic policies won’t have to worry about being harmed by their social policies. If you’re rich enough, their social policies won’t apply to you at all.

  75. 75
    dingojack

    Raging Bee – You think?
    ‘First they came for the Communists….’ :(
    Dingo

  76. 76
    Raging Bee

    Anyone who thinks Romney is neutral on gay rights (or even gay existence) should read this article about how Romney responded to the MA Supreme Judicial Court’s gay-marriage ruling:

    http://www.salon.com/2012/10/25/as_governor_mitt_romney_tripped_up_gay_parents/

  77. 77
    rork

    laurentweppe @24: I read the 2nd and 3rd paragraph, not just the first. My compliments.

    I’ve never participated on the old main drag, but I’ve seen it, fists clenched and tears in my eyes, as 18 year old beauties sold themselves. Somehow, those memories came back.

  78. 78
    bargearse

    I got as far as, “success is a virtue,” before I went WTF. No it ain’t. In this world success is often a consequence of being the more ruthless & selfish than the other guy.

  79. 79
    Leo Buzalsky

    “Governor Romney’s vision for America in which…equal opportunity is ensured…”

    …Unless you are gay and want the opportunity to get a legally recognized marriage, of course!

  80. 80
    Reginald Selkirk

    Another celebrity endorsement for Romney: Meat Loaf backs Romney
    And the reason for it is hilarious: Romney has “backbone.”

  81. 81
    dingojack

    bargearse – Souvlaki? It’s still warm. :)

  82. 82
    bargearse

    dingojack

    Oh crap, I’ve been rumbled

  83. 83
    nooneinparticular

    Apropos; from this week’s Savage Love column in Seattle’s The Stranger

    From a person signed as “Confused”

    Gay Republicans, Dan. Why? How?

    Savage’s response;

    Self-loathing, that’s why. Homophobia, that’s how.

  84. 84
    Pierce R. Butler

    Has anyone done a survey to find out how many Log Cabin Repubs are chronic severe masochists and humiliation bottoms?

  85. 85
    pipenta

    The first time I ran into LCR types, I was shocked. How could you be gay and right wing at the same time? Near as I can figure, the thinking goes like this:

    We are white men so we deserve the best of everything. We are white men and we are better than other people. Only there seems to be some confusion because we are gay white men so some people are prejudiced against us. But oh no, there must be some mistake. This matter must be cleared up because we are belong with the elite, we are special. And we deserve to be at the top so we can look down on all the women and all the people of color.

    There are assholes in every demographic. Some members of oppressed groups fight for justice for all. Some just want to be the ones doing the oppressing. These fools are so greedy, so narcissistic, that they think they will be safe and they don’t really give a shit about anyone else.

  1. 86
    Log Cabin Republicans Endorse Romney After Mitt Pledges to Personally Pay for Every Member to Attend Reversion Therapy « Foster Disbelief

    [...] I could tell you what they really said, but it is no less silly that what I just wrote. Share this:TwitterFacebookStumbleUponDiggGoogle [...]

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site