Log Cabin Republicans....why?

I am puzzled at why those who consider themselves gay would ever support a party that chastises them and their lifestyle. I actually sometimes wonder if these people who call themselves gay and Republican are really what their sexual preference is. Does anybody have that feeling? Maybe they are conflicted individuals. Exodus members perhaps?

John

few days some of the DEMS aren't much better.

I can't understand why anyone would support a party that finds their lifestyle so unacceptable.

And is the most conservative Christian I know. Hates the Clintons. Thinks Bush is protecting America. Is opposed to affirmative action. I can't figure it out. To her credit, she wants no special treatment or notice of any kind; just to be left alone. And she knows I'm a hard-core died in the wool liberal and loves me to death (I had a liberal column printed in my local newspaper once and she was my biggest promoter, faxing and mailing copies of it to everyone I'm remotely related to), so I can't argue politics with her. She would never say anything critical of my views, so I can't come out and ask "How come you're a member of the most intolerant political party in America?"

But you just have to wonder, how does a person join a party which not only has made a history out of persecuting them, but literally makes a business out of anti-gay hate as well?

One of them absolutely adores Bush, and has never been able to coherently explain to me why. She grew up in a Republican home, and I think it's out of habit or familial loyalty, even though she had rough relations with her parents because of her 'lifestyle choice.' For the wealthy, the Republican mantra of 'tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts' also has some appeal, regardless of sexual orientation.

this sentence "to her credit, she wants no SPECIAL TREATMENT or notice of any kind: just to be left alone" sent my right wing spin-ometer off the dial. Amazing how this stuff proliferates.

I agree with the posters who say that for most of these folks, being gay is not their primary identification like it is for many gay activists. Although I have not known any LCR's, I've known a few conservative gays, and it's about social class/money, or religion, or both. They're the ones Audre Lord was referring to when she wrote "your silence will not protect you".

I think the LCR's are motivated in part by a need for attention, the right-wing is a great place for non-white males, or gay people, or any stripe of woman, especially if they desire to be a public figure, because the 'wing is really working their tokens right now. I think people like Ann Coulter, Michele Malkin and all the rest know that on the left, they won't stand out; plus they'd have to deal with the left's sexism and racism and homophobia that we like to pretend doesn't exist over here.

The Right keeps its "pet gays" just like it keeps its "pet african-Americans", and those people don't care how they're being abused because they identify with their abusers, the same way some abused children grow up to be abusers themselves--by internalizing the value system of their oppressors.

the tax cuts? I read a study once that showed gay people in America make about $13,000 more on average than their straight counterparts. That would be my guess as to why they are Republican.

those studies have been widely debunked by gay and lesbian academics.

They were all based on marketing surveys that were taken by (God!) gay and lesbian marketing firms to prove that advertisers could make money on the gay and lesbian market. As such, they skewed the numbers.

Personally, I'm just to the right of Emma Goldman and I really do not mind paying what I do in taxes. What I resent is paying taxes to support the military industrial complex and more cuts for the rich. If my tax dollars were used as I think they should be, on education for the young and college, on infrastructure, on tightening up security and providing more services and healthcare, I would pay even more.

but I would be surprised if gays/lesbians didn't enjoy a higher standard of living than straights.

Since getting marrid and having kids is the number one reason that causes people to derail their educations, that would suppose that all things being equal elsewhere, gays are probably more educated overall.

Also, many women's careers are sent off-track by taking years off to raise kids or declining promotions to spend more time with kids or working lower paying or part-time jobs to conform their schedules with their kids. Those disadvantages wouldn't hit lesbians.

Also, it's just real expensive having kids. If two familes are each making 60 k, and one has three kids, the other has no kids, the one with no kids can afford a lot more stuff.

They probably want the largest tax cuts the wealthy can possibly obtain. I doubt if any of the Log Cabin boys grew up in extreme poverty....

It's a money and class thing.

Go figure.

I can't understand it.

:kick:

many gay people don't identify themselves, primarily, as gay. do you identify yourself primarily by your sexual orientation or preference?

being gay is just one factor in a person's life, just like being hetro is just one factor.

of being homosexual. I don't get up in the morning, and think, "Now, I must shave and take my shower, and by the way, I am 'gay', and then I must get dressed...."

I walk down the street, and see an attractive guy. I give him a double take, sometimes. I often fantacize about him. But I don't think, "Oh, it's because of my orientation"; it's just natural for me, and I don't think more than that about it. Now, if I were to notice a woman that way, then my concious brain would be alerted.

Now, the Log Cabin group might be somewhat more oriented towards awareness, as they are openly gay, and marketing themselves as repukes. But still, they apparently put tax cuts over their own liberation.

i'm not sure i explained my point well.

it's not that they don't think about being 'gay' all the time. it's that being gay is not the biggest factor in their lives.

let me put it this way....if you weren't gay, would you suddenly be a republican? or do you hold other beliefs that make you a liberal and a dem so that if you were straight, you'd still be a dem.

i know quite a few gay gays, mostly my age, 50's and older who have totally come to terms with being gay in America. they don't feel threatened. they don't get harrassed. maybe it comes with age but they live their lives just about the same as i do. they have mostly acheived the aim of having gayness be 'no big deal'.

their gayness is not the most important issue in their lives or their philosophy. while i don't think any of them are LCR, some are republican (no surprise since i live in repub hell) a couple are dem but most are like the majority of Americans, either swing/indies or apolitical. i bet if most of them woke up tommorrow as 'straight', their political leanings would not change a wit because their sexual orientation and preference does not rule their lives.

they still want changes. especially considering their age, they'd like to see SS benifits come to suviving partners and equity in inheritance but they generally think this stuff will come in the next decade or so, no matter which party governs because this is a hearts and minds issue, with change coming from the bottom up, rather than the top down. am i the only one here to notice that a gay break out into TV failed during clinton but succeeded under bush? this has nothing to do with who was president but a gradual change in the populace.

i don't know why i'm going on so about this....other than that i see sooooooo much unhappiness and fear among the gays here while my gay friends are generaly about as happy/unhappy or fearful/secure as my straight friends. i hate to see this fear. and truthfully don't really see the cause.

i dunno....maybe my friends have grown tolerant of the slights that others find intolerant. maybe it's their age and the fact that they lived through times that were truly evil. i've known most of these guys for thirty years. there is nothing we can't or don't discuss
despite my orientation and i just don't see such fears in their lives.

i wish some of the gays here could enjoy their lives as my friends are and see the glass as 2/3 full instead of 1/3 empty.

if a political party made it clear that their members despised me for being heterosexual. Furthermore, if this party was in bed with a religious group that was sure I was going to hell for being heterosexual, that I was a child-molester due to my heterosexuality, that I was corrupt, evil, deviant, and unnatural for being heterosexual.

Yep...your damn right I would have my heterosexuality in the front of my mind ever day while said party was in power.

If this party gave me a tax break because of my economic position, and I voted for them due to this tax break while ignoring the fact that they wanted to deny me as a heterosexual all the benefits that homosexuals have, then I would be a fool.

GREEDY AND SELF-SERVING. Why else would they be repugs???????

1. Greed and THEIR personal profit. I've found in my personal travels that most of the gay men (claiming to want) long term relationships are republican. Which is very sad, really. And they're republican because of their monetary staus which, coincidentially, is always above $75,000. Personally, I can see these mice (they're not men) dump their partner if they lose their job out of fear they;d become 'golddiggers' or 'freeloaders' or the like. It's a stereotype, but from those I've met it is true to a T so far.

2. Hitler had Jews and homosexuals working for him in his grand quest of genocide.

3. Some Africans merrily helped out to sell their own during the American slave trade.

Every group has its traitors. And that's who the Log Cabin Republicans (LCRs) are. Traitors.

And somehow they think they're going to be respected under republican rule. Some day they're going to stop say "How disappointing that news was" and wake up and get their priorities, um, straightened out.

I even stopped going to a gay-friendly church when they started their pro-republican leanings and meanderings. And it's not like they'll receive any of Bush's "faith based bullplop" either...

Sad, it's all very sad.

The funny thing is we use to go out guy shopping when we were young and I never knew she was bi-sexual.
She was a staunch republican and her last name is Kennedy and she claims that she was related to the Kennedy Clan.

In my opinion (and I seem to be coming an expert on the subject), I have several acquaintances that are not only Republican but very conservative. Bush can do no wrong! It makes me just want to throw up! Then they have the gall to call me un-American when I call these right wing nuts fascist! They support the war in Iraq, they support the tax cuts, and they even support banning Gay marriages! And their excuse for supporting the ban on Gay marriages is why we would even want to marry someone. Not all Gay people adhere to crap! If you want my honest opinion, somewhere deep down inside them is a Gay person wanting to jump out and SCREAM I’M HERE AND I’M QUEER, but something seems to be stopping it, and I for the life of me cannot figure out what it is.

I tell them if you want proof of what the Republicans think of us, just go to the RNC website and read it for yourself. Their response is oh that just to get the ultra conservative vote. THAT MAKES ME JUST WANT TO SCREAM! What the hell do they think the Republican Party is? These days you are hard pressed to find a moderate Republican.

I as a Gay person feel right now how Jewish people must have felt during the late 1930’s. I am actually in fear for my life under this Administration! I may not be put in a gas chamber, but if you take my civil rights & my dignity, you might as well kill me.

Sorry to rant on like this, but Gay Republicans REALLY PISS ME OFF!

hellooooooo.......have you forgotten what happend the other week?
SCOTUS....overturning the sodomy law?

which means that for the first time in like, forever, you can have sex legally.

i swear, hang around here and you'd think we lost that case.

you just gained protection of your civil right to sex. what are you talking about losing civil rights?

It's called AMBITION, people.

I think David Brock can tell you all you need to know about why Republicans are gay in his book, "Blinded by the Right."

Think of it this way. It is MUCH easier to work your way up on the right than it is on the left. On the left, you are just one more gay idealist. If you join the right, they'll embrace you with open arms, all so they can hold you up with the implication being: even this dirty faggot knows we're right!

Bernie Goldberg got himself rich and famous in a similar fashion, although he's a Jew, not a homosexual.

That can change real quick! Wake up and smell the coffee!

A couple of weeks ago, NPR news was airing a piece about how Bush's "supposed" hedging on the question of gay rights and actually setting up a meeting with the LCR was upsetting some of his constituency on the far right.

My first question was what does the LCR think they will be gaining by being tantalized by the most right-wing, intolerant administration ever? For God's sake, they're in re-elecion mode! They'll entertain anyone for the votes but that doesn't mean they will ever take their concerns seriously if they maintain power. That's the last thing anyone who has serious issues with the right wing should wish for. A lame duck adminsitration of this kind is a dangerous thing to everyone and everything. They have absolutely nothing to lose!

The right is endorsing pre-marital sex by not giving us gay marriage...

jeepers, creepers, what moronic freepers...

But we have them in Germany (LSU) too.
I have asked some schwusus (gay socialists) about this and they couldn't answer it as well.
:shrug:

...their parents were Republican, so they just continued it. Being in the northeast being a gay Republican isn't as awful as being a gay Republican elsewhere because in the Northeast even Repukes are liberal. However, there really is an Uncle Tom thing going on here--please massah, just don't beat me to a pulp and I'll be good.

The only good thing is that there really aren't that many of them, regardless of what Andrew "I Have No Brain Therefore I'm Famous" Sullivan says.

Why?

;-)

Money

Lots of the 'Log Cabins' are libertarian types who vote Republican because they're, shall we say, in the Top 10% income bracket.

It's always easier to see the fault in others than in oneself.

....your post header question speaks volumes. Good point.

...some progressives who were claiming the other day that Bush's words on gay marriage that started with "We're all sinners..." was a bold plea for tolerance right here on these boards.

i will again ask you to find any discussion of the bible 'quote' that bush referenced that says it is anything other than a lesson on tolerance.

and, while you are at it, explain how bush, of all people, wasn't taking a chance off pissing of the fundies with it's use. while you are at it, consider how the fundies and homophobes felt when he did not, repeat NOT tell ashcroft to weigh in, in defense of the sodomy laws, which also freaked out the uber-right.

i'm not saying bush is a big GLBT right's pusher but those two acts were bold, considering the sentiments of the repub right.

that he feels confident enough, when facing election, to do these things is what should concern you.

Putting stock in anything that man says is the height of blind foolishness. His statement was anything but "bold". It was outright balderdash. Don't you see how he is sucking up to the religious right on this one? It's their very own motto: "Love the sinner, but hate the sin." That is exactly what he espoused. "Oh, I can forgive the little fags for their sin, but we certainly won't condone them by recognizing their legal rights (i.e. gay marriage)."

C'mon, that you give the man ANY credit is outright bewildering! Ack! Get real.

bush said nothing about love the sinner hate the sin.

he quote a lesson on tolerance.

i'm not giving him "credit" for anything except hutzpha.

he could have skipped the tolerance lesson and went right into the
no gay marriage bit.

what did he have to gain by using that line? how many gays will decide to vote for him based on that one line? zero.

how many fundies will stay home because they see him as a sodomite enabler. more than zero, that's for sure.

this is my point. the fact that he feels that he can lose votes over this issue is telling. the fact that he is willing to risk losing votes over this issue may also be telling but it's too soon to say.

i did find it a bold thing for him to do since he had little to gain
by doing it.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html

Are you gay/lesbian
yes 4 %
no 96 %

Of gay/lesbian, who did you vote for
Bush 25 %
Gore 70 %

We were both in a fundie church for several years (yes, Exodus members - the whole bit). I gradually began to realize that I was letting other people run my life. He sorta did too, but not as strongly as me. I just finally couldn't keep fighting for a place at the table anymore, while others came and went so freely, without having to demonstrate anything. No matter what I did in the church, I was never seen as worthy of trust - simply because I "struggled with homosexuality." I might as well have worn a scarlet letter.

I veered strongly left, and he stayed with a right wing focus - including the LCR. We continued to see each other occasionally, but I finally had to break things off. I just couldn't take his praise of Bush and support for the war - that was the last straw, really.

It's all so sad.

Republican's push for a "Small Government" motto first and foremost. So Gays and African-Americans, and other minorites are intrigued and believe in concepts of small government.

I know a gay man who doesn't want to tax the rich, who likes exporting jobs, who doesn't like affirmative action. So he is very much a repub except he forgets their ever strong radical wing who'd like to lynch him in a second.

I guess they just rather not think about that and hope it's just an overblown stereotype.

But the weirdest political tragedy is.... Clarence Thomas? Whaaaaaaaa????? ;-)

I hestitate to speak for others, but I do remember way back in the early Seventies there was some disaffection with Democratic politics, criticism of political correctness in the feminist movement, and, you know, stuff like the "lavender menace" purge. So at that time while the Christian conservatives were still a fringe group within the Republican Party, their hands-off approach, like the libertarians, was attractive to some lesbian voters.

It's hard to say what these log cabin Republicans are thinking. I'd imagine there are still some suspicions about the Democrats' commitment to gay rights, and perhaps naivety about the degree to which Dubya is beholden to extremist hate groups like the Christian Coalition. I really couldn't say though. The handful of conservative-leaning older lesbians I know (mostly Oregonians, a special case in many ways) wouldn't think of voting Republican now.

Oh, and I'd be loathe to pin the blame on conflicted individuals. It's more of a group phenomenon, you know, the psychology of oppressed groups. People who identify with an oppressed group tend to be suspicious of outsiders who claim to be on their side. In fact, there are precious few openly gay politicians in this country, Republican or Democrat. So if you're openly gay, some bloke showing up with a big old Donkey pin on his lapel can't be assumed to be one of you, not fully. It's not that people are paranoid, it's just that their group has been marginalized or persecuted.

Organizations like Victory Fund endorse openly gay candidates regardless of party affiliation. (In fact if you browse their website you hardly see it mentioned at all.) By contrast, organizations like Human Rights Campaign look at voting records and issues, and that puts them much more in line with Democrats. As a Democrat, it only seems natural that gays would prefer Dems, but from the gay perspective the Dem's may have some negotiating to do to earn their support.

(Please nobody crucify me for simplifying identity politics; if you have a more sophisticated way of talking about it, have at it.)

that should be enough? /sarcasm off

where did he say that? show me where he said that..

why is it okay for us to lie to each other?

some of us come here for talking points to use in the real world.
why are you trying to make us look like fools by spreading easily
provable lies?

somebody may actually believe this crap and they'll get their head handed to them by the truth. we are coming into battle and some people here seem intent on passing out blanks instead of live ammo and i'm starting to wonder why?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2972363,00.html

<snip>
``I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or the other,'' he said.

Still, he urged Americans not to ostracize gays.

``I am mindful that we're all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own,'' the president said, invoking a biblical passage from the Gospel of St. Matthew.

<snip>
...
<snip>
VGay-rights activists and a member of Congress took offense at Bush's comment that ``we're all sinners,'' interpreting the remark as reflecting on gays and lesbians.

``While we respect President Bush's religious views, it is unbecoming of the president of the United States to characterize same-sex couples as 'sinners,''' said Matt Foreman, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's executive director.

Rep. Janice Schakowsky, D-Ill., wrote Bush a letter charging that he ``seemed to equate homosexuality with sin,'' and demanding that the president apologize.
<snip>

But then, I guess you're one of the few who want to say we're misinterpreting his remarks.

people see things through their own lenses. interpretation is an idividual thing and i cannot prove yours is wrong. well i can but no one wants to acknowledge the truth of the meaning of the quote.

but you said:
" the president says he forgives their sinning..."

that goes far beyond a misinterpretation.

you claim he actual said something and i'd like to see proof that what you are saying is true.

"DU should just be for progressives. There's no room for bearfartinthewoods at DU. However, I am mindful that we're all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own,''

I'd say you'd have every right to say I called you a sinner, but that I forgive you.

attacking the whistleblower instead of trying to defend the lie.

normally, i'd alert on a post like yours but i think this really desperate strawman should stand here.

we all need chuckles now and again.

Maybe now you know how the gays feel.

a really really really juicy bush quote is worse than useless if it's not true.

that's my only point.

when i first got here, a very well respected member posted that Kerry did three tours in vietnam. this guy is semi famous and i took him at his word and used that factoid in an arguement the next day.

it wasn't true and i got called on it. it happened to have an effect on my credibility on a certain venue. i didn't like losing credibility. most serious foot soldiers in these debates don't.

we are all supposed to be on the same side here. given that, why set people up with false info. i know, i know, only a fool believes anything they hear on a internet forum but who has time to check out everything? we do tend to trust more than we should. i just hate to see that trust abused.

i guess i don't understand, given all the provable shit bushco says and does, why anyone needs to "embelish" reality, especially here.

why lie to your allies? is my point.

the presidents use of (paraphrasing) "I'm against gay marriage, but we're all sinners, so be careful who you condemn" remarks as essentially saying that gays are sinners who should be forgiven. If you don't see it that way, fine. But characterizing those who do as liars is stretching it quite a bit.

using your interpretation of bush's remarks, you feel it is legit for you to say bush says gays are sinners, even though he didn't actually say that

but if i opperated as you do, using my interpretation of his remarks, i could say bush says gays are great, even if he didn't say it?

either case is a lie because he didn't say either thing. i guess a more 'polite' way to say it would be that both cases are 'spin'.

my point is why are we spinning each other? do you enjoy the spin we get from the media 24/7? i don't. nor do i want to be 'spun' here at DU.

That was the way I evaluated it immediately upon seeing Bush make the statement.

It's usually the really he-man:
'Man's man' who hunts, fishes, talks sports incessantly

and tells all the 'faggot' jokes;
who eventually comes out of the closet.


It was
a former teen gay young Republican boyfriend of adult McCarthy chief persecutor Roy Cohn
who started Log Cabin Republicans.

A gay neighbor in Lodi CA used to talk about speaking with Rush Limbaugh in Sacramento/ Lodi Stockton gay clubs.

Yet Rush is a vocal gay basher.

Jerry Fallwell is so obviously obsessed with homosexuality, he can rarely stop ranting about it.

Remember it was Republicans who spent all those millions and all those years obsessed with Slick's 'willy'.

Perhaps Fallwell's 'Clinton Chronicles' with their venom spewing,
was merely because Monica got to do what Jerry Fallwell dreames about.

"Hell hath no fury like a (wo)man scorned."


No offense intended to gays who are comfortable with themselves.
Most know the self hating types, who are in all groups.

*Hoover hated himself both for his cross dressing and his black grandmother.

...that resemble the anti-Catholic posts.

These people are gay and happend to be Republican too. The big deal is when the GOP takes anti-gay stands. When they do the Log Cabin crowd says they regret this or that stand and disagree witht that stand.

The Log Cabiners also try to support the dwindeling moderate wing of the GOP.

Are these post that resemble the anti-Catholic posts considered anti-gay or anti-Log Cabin Republicans?

Because many homosexuals have woken up and realized that the current Democratic Party is not looking out for our best interests.

Sadly, when faced this reality, some gays switch their allegiance to the Republican Party, believing it's their only alternative to an ineffective Democratic Party.

Too many people (of all sexual orientations) fail to realize that there is a third option: GO INDEPENDENT!

Make the politicians actually earn your vote.