Gay Conservatives?

[DC_DEEP]

<...>
As a group, gays tend to have higher education, more disposable income and more business ownership. Such interests are best represented by the GOP, hands-down.

I will agree with the part about the disposable income, but I'm not so sure how well the GOP represents/supports higher education OR small business ownership. If it's a large corporation, yes.

However, since many PEOPLE in the GOP are opposed to homosexuality--largely due to religious beliefs--most gay people throw the baby out with the bath water. Should a gay person really care if a candidate personally thinks an alternative lifestyle is immoral, as long as that same candidate best represents his interests (national security, border protection, economy, property rights, etc.). I think the answer is clear. I am not surprised that there exist Log Cabin Republicans and I commend any homosexual astute enough to separate hurt feelings from political policy and base his vote on the latter.

If you were talking about pre-Nixon GOP, I could possibly agree with you. But the current crop of neo-con republicans go far beyond just the anti-gay sentiment. I am not a single-issue American. The republican platform in general is just unpalatable. The democratic platform is unpalatable, but for different reasons. The whole, complex current GOP concept of larger more powerful federal government scares me. Their idea of "family values" beyond gay issues scares me.

jesus americans are stupid

Thank you, adrianherman. Are jesus europeans or jesus asians just as stupid? What about abraham americans, or muhummad americans? Or buddha africans? Are they all just as stupid?

 

[rimmer9]

I wouldn't worry about being gay, your real problem is being a right wing republican. I hear Genghis Khan may have room in his tribe but he may be too left wing for you.

 

[Corius]

SpeedoGuy, it would seem to me that holding on to, or recovering, those attitudes and values of our tradition which represent the best kind of concern for human being as unique individuals would be the sensible way to go. Holding on to the best surely ought to appeal to conservatives as well as liberals. We do have to learn once again to live together in peace.
There is enough bad faith to cover just about everyone in this quest. The "straight" community has forgotten that not all persons fit their mold and their use of the power of government to bring everyone in line are properly resisted by those who are thereby oppressed. Homosexuality is not the evil to be fought; it would seem that the greater evil is the homophobia which is manipulated for political advantage. I, for one, look for signs within the so-called conservative camp that they are at long last recognizing reality and setting about to live with it. Let them face the fact that "gays" are not going to disappear. I wish I could say that the conservatives are seeing the light.
On the other hand, those of us in the other camp, that is liberals, gays, bisexual, etc., have a bit of soul-searching to do as well. We are not without sin. We sin against each other and against ourselves in needlessly presenting ourselves as offensive quite aside from our sexual orientations. There is much to be done from our side as well. We need to propose public policies that we can honestly represent as being good for the whole of the community.

 

[NCbear]

BIGNFLOPPY, I was not intending to start a political argument either. I assumed that you wanted some honest discussion. Since you started the thread, I was asking you only to be more specific. I'd love for this to be a civil discussion; I honestly would like for you to give us all a short summary of the conservatism you say you espouse. Be specific: what values are important to you? What principles do you think should guide the conservatism you favor? Frankly, I think that's a reasonable request.

I like to think that all Americans, that is those who call themselves conservatives and those who claim the name of liberal and those who can't be comfortable with any label, do have some common values. Ours, according to the founders was to be a government of laws and not of men. Governments don't have any rights to give away; the job of government is to secure (make safe) the God-given rights of the people. Government may only exercise such power as has been granted to it by the law and that law is binding on all including all persons who hold power under the law. The Constitution speaks of the purpose of this government under law; it is to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and to secure (make safe) the blessings of liberty. To all of which I say a loud Amen.

There's a lot more, but I'll be happy to hear you join the chorus of Amens to the values stated and implied. Were the conservatives on the side of limiting the meaning of these wonderful words or were they the leaders in seeking to enlarge the meanings suggested to include women, slaves, and former slaves, child laborers, Native Americans, and persons whose sexual orientation might be a minority orientation?

Until we get down to cases in the USA of 2007 it's hard to have a meaningful discussion if you don't make clear where you stand. Be brave, give us your picture of the United States of America as it would be if we embraced your conservative vision. Fair enough?

Peace!

This is my question exactly. There are plenty of different types of conservative thought, many of which I can live with.

What I cannot live with are (1) people who tell me what to say or think -- whether self-labeled as "liberal," "moderate," or "conservative" -- and (2) people who are willing to abrogate their own right and/or that of others to govern themselves.

NCbear (who is becoming more libertarian by the minute, it seems)

 

[headbang8]

There seems to be huge groups in America that can be classified as "single-issue voters." For the most part, gays tend to be one such group. It really is tragic, considering many gays DO have more in common with the GOP than with the American Communist Party. As a group, gays tend to have higher education, more disposable income and more business ownership. Such interests are best represented by the GOP, hands-down.

However, since many PEOPLE in the GOP are opposed to homosexuality--largely due to religious beliefs--most gay people throw the baby out with the bath water. Should a gay person really care if a candidate personally thinks an alternative lifestyle is immoral, as long as that same candidate best represents his interests (national security, border protection, economy, property rights, etc.). I think the answer is clear. I am not surprised that there exist Log Cabin Republicans and I commend any homosexual astute enough to separate hurt feelings from political policy and base his vote on the latter.

You know, 3rdLM, this post raises so many issues, I don't know where to start.

I think you might find that many, many more conservatives vote against their own financial interests than do gays. Read Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? In it, he marvels that evangelical voters (mostly poor, poorly educated, wage earners) consistently return the GOP when it cuts services, helps business eat away at conditions and benefits, gives banks and credit-card companies more power to bankrupt them, and would let them die for lack of affordable health care.

But they prefer the GOP's stance on moral issues. I don't think I need to point out that this stance is largely hypocrisy. You suggest that a conservative may privately deplore my "immorality", but his public actions work in my favor. Precisely the opposite, in my observation. That I'm immoral forms a cornerstone of his public policy; in private, he loves his pregnant lesbian daughter, for example, or pursues an affair while he impeaches a president for casual sex.

As a typical white, corporate, cultured, fat-cat fag, I would find it difficult to vote against my financial interests anywhere in America, even if I wanted to.

Last election, even in the capital-L Liberal 14th Congressional District in Manhattan's toney east side, I struggled to find a communist on the ballot, as you suggest I would have liked. (I secretly long for a burly KGB operative to slap me around as he confiscates my foie gras, you see.)

No, my local Congresswoman is a Democrat, a party of millionaires named Gore, Edwards, and Clinton, among others. I don't expect to find my back to the wall for quite some time. At least, not for being bourgeois.

Mind you, a good dose of socialism makes economic sense. The lack of a decent collective health care system isn't just bankrupting poor evangelical GOP voters, it's bankrupting General fucking Motors. And what's good for Genral Motors is good for....oh, never mind.

What bourgeois GOP supporters fail to see is that their interests are far more closely aligned with working Americans than with the Pillaging Classes, to whom the current GOP would toss the keys to the treasury.

But the bigger point is this. There are more important things than money when it comes to politics; there are principles, beliefs, and morals. My evangelical neighbors teach me that.

My partner can't make decisions about me when I'm on my death bed. He can't live with me in the USA, because he's a foreign citizen. I'm paying for a military that I can't join. Evangelicals can issue death threats against an artist for a piece of chocolate, yet gays get beaten to death and police turn a blind eye. That's a tad more than hurt feelings, wouldn't you agree? Hurt feelings and moral outrage are two different things--it's conservatives who need to learn that lesson.

As an affluent urban gay, voting GOP doesn't appreciably serve my financial interests better. But it would sure as hell mess with my life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, 3rdLM.

The baby sits in the bathtub as I speak, drying off.

 

[Edmond405]

So I am sure that I do not need to point out that the conservatives and christian coalition are keeping you from being a "true" and real married couple?????

I appreciate your response and it is a question we address often in our lives. We don't feel that anyone other than God and ourselves defines our marriage as "true" or "real". That said, we work very hard to educate our conservative and liberal friends about what it would mean financially and legally to share in their "married" rights. It is a cause we feel strongly about and are working through every channel we can find to change. In addition to that, we feel that, currently, there are more pressing issues facing our nation: enforcement of immigration laws, deportation of illegal aliens in prison, major welfare reform, abolition of the IRS and implementation of the Fair Tax & anything to decrease the amount of involvement the governement has in our lives (as well as anything to decrease the amount of dependence on the federal government by everyone). Perhaps I should say we are more Federalist in our orientation politically? To be sure, the extremes on the right and left have a lot of themselves to get over. Our government is just flat out too far removed from its origins. And the two main political parties are too out of touch with their foundations and too focused on appealing to their extremes (both of which are wrong). The great thing is that we have venues in which to discuss all of this, learn more from each other and hopefully make a difference in a positive way. I think it is great that this thread has gone so far (though I haven't finished catching up on the posts - hope it didn't turn nasty). Respectful, honest, open discussion is great!

Ed

 

[Edmond405]

And let me add this after reading a few more posts: Though there are many of us out there that call ourselves "Gay Republicans", do not assume that we are happy with the Republican Party currently. Many of us in a local group are together because we were very unhappy with the Democratic Party on many issues. Thus, we've come together because, in general, we are more focused on issues that are "typically old school Republican" and we're hoping to create some change. We happen to be in a great partnership with the similar local gay democrats - we're all working together. That, at least, is as it should be.

 

[headbang8]

And let me add this after reading a few more posts: Though there are many of us out there that call ourselves "Gay Republicans", do not assume that we are happy with the Republican Party currently. Many of us in a local group are together because we were very unhappy with the Democratic Party on many issues. Thus, we've come together because, in general, we are more focused on issues that are "typically old school Republican" and we're hoping to create some change. We happen to be in a great partnership with the similar local gay democrats - we're all working together. That, at least, is as it should be.

What a sensible point of view, Edmond!

In many ways, gay Democrats face the more pernicious threat. The half-acceptance offered by so many Democrat candidates is harder to fight, more elusive. At least gay Republicans know their enemy.

Remember, it was a Democrat administration, which I otherwise admire in many ways, that weaseled out of supporting gay rights with the farcical DADT.

Tell me, is there a movement within the Republican party that wants to restore honour to politics?

 

[B_jammin_j]

I sure hope somebody puts some honor back into politics on both sides of the aisle, and fast. You know, I have considered myself a Republican for several years, but I am absolutely disgusted with many aspects of the current party leaders, not to mention the Bush administration. Since when are the Republicans the party of big government? (Oh, wait! I know!)

Anyway, I believe GOP and Democratic leaders alike are pointing our country in the wrong direction. I don't think I can bring myself to vote for any of the current presidential frontrunners from either party. Give me a REAL conservative who wants smaller government and reduced government spending, then I'll gladly go to the ballot box and cast my vote without any remorse.

 

[Dockerking]

There seems to be huge groups in America that can be classified as "single-issue voters." For the most part, gays tend to be one such group. It really is tragic, considering many gays DO have more in common with the GOP than with the American Communist Party. As a group, gays tend to have higher education, more disposable income and more business ownership. Such interests are best represented by the GOP, hands-down.

However, since many PEOPLE in the GOP are opposed to homosexuality--largely due to religious beliefs--most gay people throw the baby out with the bath water. Should a gay person really care if a candidate personally thinks an alternative lifestyle is immoral, as long as that same candidate best represents his interests (national security, border protection, economy, property rights, etc.). I think the answer is clear. I am not surprised that there exist Log Cabin Republicans and I commend any homosexual astute enough to separate hurt feelings from political policy and base his vote on the latter.

Wonderful response and great insight. I know of no group as closed minded as most gays regarding gay marriage. Agree with and accept gay marriage or you are a homophobe, a fool and a bigot. In spite of what most gays believe, gay marriage is not the single most important and defining issue facing the world today. As a matter of fact, it is rather far down on the list. Failing to appreciate this makes most gays far more intolerant and closed minded than most of those they are criticizing.

While I certainly agree with the concept of civil unions, this is not acceptable to most gays. Even though virtually every “right” included in the marriage contract can be achieved with appropriate legislation regarding civil unions, such legislation would not sufficiently stick it to the homophobes and prove to them that gays are exactly the same as non-gays. (It is up to all good gays to show these fundamentalist morons that their religion sucks and they are 100% wrong!)

I don’t agree with gay marriage and I would never vote for it. Marriage is getting weaker every day even without gay marriage. I will, however, fight vigorously for strong civil unions– which will be easier to pass than gay marriage.

A number of my gay friends agree completely with me on this subject, even though several started out disagreeing.

 

[invisibleman]

I am not doubting your political convictions, but I am not sure you have it right that the "gay club" wouldn't have you as a member. It is not your conservatism that confuses. I know lots of gay conservatives, (and even more libertarian ones) but you specifically identify with a wing of the Republican party that expressly believes you should be denied your civil rights even though that has nothing to do with the other causes you hold dear.

I know I am not a sympathetic ear, because I happen to think that civil rights are what is best for our country and the world. You see, I am old enough to have lived through a whole generation of people opposing the rights of women and minorities using the exact line you are using now (that the good of the country and the world had to be placed ahead of righting the inequalities perpetuated by law.) They turned out to be wrong. Denying people their civil rights, or even postponing them, didn't help the other causes, and may have actually hurt them.

True conservatism makes some sense to me, but there is a reason that both your Limbaugh friends and your gay friends think you are attempting to mix oil and water pointlessly. If it keeps you from coming out in the world, you are in for a world of pain. I know. I've been there.

Do you think that Gay Republicans have that Patricia Hearst/SLA type syndrome? Identifying with their attackers? Then again there are Republicans that are African American. I know a few. One is Vernon Robinson who ran for Congress. He wanted Americans to return to the
traditional family values like in "Leave It To Beaver". As far as I can remember, I don't recall any black people on "Leave It To Beaver".

 

[DC_DEEP]

I know of no group as closed minded as most gays regarding gay marriage.

Except perhaps those who oppose gay marriage?

Agree with and accept gay marriage or you are a homophobe, a fool and a bigot. In spite of what most gays believe, gay marriage is not the single most important and defining issue facing the world today.

Thank you for speaking for most gays. No, it is not the single most important and defining issue facing the world today, so why the strong opposition? It is definitely a human rights issue, and that does make it important.

As a matter of fact, it is rather far down on the list. Failing to appreciate this makes most gays far more intolerant and closed minded than most of those they are criticizing.

Hmm, I'm intolerant and closed minded for demanding 14th Amendment protection? Alrighty, then. I suppose the women who wanted the right to vote early in the last century were intolerant and closed minded, too, eh?

While I certainly agree with the concept of civil unions, this is not acceptable to most gays. Even though virtually every “right” included in the marriage contract can be achieved with appropriate legislation regarding civil unions, such legislation would not sufficiently stick it to the homophobes and prove to them that gays are exactly the same as non-gays.

This proves that you really do not know what you are talking about. Civil unions do NOT provide the same legal protections as marriage. Read all 1,490 federal laws, and all the thousands upon thousands of state and local laws that provide legal protections to married couples, then re-visit your statement.

(It is up to all good gays to show these fundamentalist morons that their religion sucks and they are 100% wrong!)

No, it's up to all good gays to insist upon 1st Amendment protection. The fundamentalist morons are free to feel or believe as they choose, but they are not free to force those beliefs upon me.

I don’t agree with gay marriage

That's fine. If you don't agree with it, you shouldn't do it. Tough concept, eh? Saying "I don't agree with it, so I have a right to prevent you from doing it" is just asinine.

and I would never vote for it.

And that is your right. But consider this - I'll be perfectly happy for you or any other person to "vote" on who I'm allowed to marry, if I'm allowed to vote on who you (or anyone else) may or may not marry. It should work both ways.

Marriage is getting weaker every day even without gay marriage.

Please finish this statement, and tell me how gay marriage will weaken straight marriage. Don't tell me how it would insult your tender sensibilities or your idea of "what marriage should be", tell me how it would weaken anyone else's marriage if I got married.

 

[Dockerking]

.Hmm, I'm intolerant and closed minded for demanding 14th Amendment protection? Alrighty, then. I suppose the women who wanted the right to vote early in the last century were intolerant and closed minded, too, eh?

You have equated the issue of gay marriage with slavery (the 14th amendment was passed to stop the abuses of slavery) and with women’s rights to vote. If you equate the inability of gays to be married (versus a strong civil union statute) with these issues, then clearly you are closed minded and are incapable of thinking clearly on the subject. (Can you not bring in the holocaust in some way to show that the inability of gays to marry is far worse than the holocaust? It goes without saying that gay marriage is certainly a more important issue than the threat of Moslem terrorists)

I have advocated a strong civil union statute that provides virtually all of the benefits of marriage.The 14th Amendment requires the states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons. With a comprehensive civil union statute, what protections would you not have? Do you imagine, for even a second, that such a comprehensive civil union law would have the same issues as the ‘separate but equal’ clause decided by Brown vs. Board of Education, which correctly held that separate school were inherently unequal?

Quote: This proves that you really do not know what you are talking about. Civil unions do NOT provide the same legal protections as marriage. Read all 1,490 federal laws, and all the thousands upon thousands of state and local laws that provide legal protections to married couples, then re-visit your statement.

Have you not noticed that gay marriage is illegal (or about to become so) in virtually every state in the union? (Certainly every significant state.) I indicated that virtually every “right” included in the marriage contract can be achieved with appropriate legislation regarding civil unions.” Notice that I said “can be achieved”. I clearly did not state that existing laws provide the same protections as marriage. It is my view, however, that it will be far easier, faster and more effective to fight for strong civil union legislation than for legalizing gay marriage.

Quote: No, it's up to all good gays to insist upon 1st Amendment protection. The fundamentalist morons are free to feel or believe as they choose, but they are not free to force those beliefs upon me.

Bulletin! Their beliefs are already forced upon you. Or did you not believe me when I said that gay marriage is illegal (or about to become so) in virtually every state in the union?

1st Amendment protection? My head swims. You have really been trampled on. Can you not find any violations of the 2nd, 3rd or 4th Amendment? The 2nd Amendment will be a snap – I like rough sex, and guns are a necessity.

Quote: Thank you for speaking for most gays. No, it is not the single most important and defining issue facing the world today, so why the strong opposition? It is definitely a human rights issue, and that does make it important

I think that you have proven my point that most gays go absolutely ballistic if anyone suggests that gay marriage may not be the solution to all of the world’s ills. A good part of my opposition to gay marriage is that it ain’t going to happen – at least not for a long, long time.

Why would it be a civil rights issue if you had civil union legislation that provided virtually all of the rights of marriage?

Strong laws regarding civil unions are far more likely to pass (and much more quickly) than the legalization of gay marriage.

 

[DC_DEEP]

You have equated the issue of gay marriage with slavery (the 14th amendment was passed to stop the abuses of slavery) and with women’s rights to vote. If you equate the inability of gays to be married (versus a strong civil union statute) with these issues, then clearly you are closed minded and are incapable of thinking clearly on the subject. (Can you not bring in the holocaust in some way to show that the inability of gays to marry is far worse than the holocaust? It goes without saying that gay marriage is certainly a more important issue than the threat of Moslem terrorists)

You really really really need to go back and re-read the US Constitution. Pay special attention to amendments 13 and 14.

I have advocated a strong civil union statute that provides virtually all of the benefits of marriage.The 14th Amendment requires the states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons. With a comprehensive civil union statute, what protections would you not have? Do you imagine, for even a second, that such a comprehensive civil union law would have the same issues as the ‘separate but equal’ clause decided by Brown vs. Board of Education, which correctly held that separate school were inherently unequal?

If you don't know the difference between "virtually all" and "all", then you will never understand what I'm addressing here.

Have you not noticed that gay marriage is illegal (or about to become so) in virtually every state in the union? (Certainly every significant state.)

Yes, actually, I have noticed. And I am saying that those laws are not Constitutional. That doesn't stop state legislatures from passing the laws, but those laws are not Constitutional.

Bulletin! Their beliefs are already forced upon you. Or did you not believe me when I said that gay marriage is illegal (or about to become so) in virtually every state in the union?

No, that's not a bulletin. I understand that those beliefs are being forced upon me. That's why I mention 1st Amendment. And yes, I already understood about gay marriage. I didn't have to believe you, I already understood that.

1st Amendment protection? My head swims. You have really been trampled on.

That's exactly my point.

Can you not find any violations of the 2nd, 3rd or 4th Amendment?

Violations abound, but are not germane to this discussion. I have addressed 4th Amendment violations in numerous other threads. Search warrants really have nothing to do with the subject of gay conservatives or gay marriage. Pay attention.

The 2nd Amendment will be a snap – I like rough sex, and guns are a necessity.

Your attempt at sarcasm here failed. Don't be puerile.

I think that you have proven my point that most gays go absolutely ballistic if anyone suggests that gay marriage may not be the solution to all of the world’s ills. A good part of my opposition to gay marriage is that it ain’t going to happen – at least not for a long, long time.

I think you may be the one going ballistic here. I'll be happy for the government to deny marriage rights to gays - if they deny those same rights to straights. I'm not sure why you don't get it that the government does not have authority to grant privilege. And if the government offers rights and benefits to one group, but denies those same rights and benefits to another group, that is privilege - and not constitutional.

Why would it be a civil rights issue if you had civil union legislation that provided virtually all of the rights of marriage?

Again, if you missed it the first time, it's that slippery word "virtually" that bothers me. If you can absolutely guarantee that civil unions would have EXACTLY the same rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities as marriage, then fine, I don't care what you call it. But I doubt that you can make such an absolute guarantee.

 

[headbang8]

You know, the argument for strong civil unions almost wins me over.

The term "marriage", as it's used in most western countries, carries a lot of baggage. It's a public commitment to fidelity, as witnessed by God and one's family and friends.

Now, I dunno. I think I'd like the legal protection of a spouse, without needing to reveal what goes on in the bedroom before titillated relatives and a god I don't believe in.

I would prefer a civil union, actually, and intend to enter one soon. However...

Words like "husband", "wife" and "marriage" are baked into laws of the USA at every level. It takes the stroke of a pen to change all the laws relating to marriage in Holland, say. But to change the laws of the USA would take years, and some levels of government in far flung places sure as hell will resist.

That's tough, but do-able. Harder to change attitudes that are baked into the fabric of our culture.

Let's say, you're a lesbian couple. One partner is injured in a car crash, and taken to an emergency room. You're in a part of the country where words like "partner" or "civil spouse" are less than well understood; maybe the resident on duty never knowingly met a gay person. A decision has to be made, and they must identify the next of kin for consent. Which creates a quicker, clearer understanding; she's my civil partner or she's my wife?

There are only two ways to make sure that a civil union is afforded the same level of dignity and respect a marriage commands. Either call it "marriage", or call nothing marriage. I favour the latter.

In Australia, for example, all marriages are civil unions in the eyes of the law. As are all de facto marriages or so-called common-law wives and husbands--that includes gay couples. How you join yourselves in the eyes of god, and before your community, is no business of the state. It was a controversial law when it was passed (1975) but it has proven its worth time and again, by protecting spouses who really need it.

So...who will join me in abolishing marriage?

Hey, where'd everybody go?

 

[NCbear]

How about taking the best of what headbang8 said and the best of what dockerking said, and make civil unions what the state meddles in (i.e., provides licenses for) and marriages what churches offer?

Sounds like a simple solution. And holds to the principle of the separation of church and state.

NCbear (who knows of places he can have both a civil union AND a marriage)

 

[Freddie53]

Headbang.

I have already commented on this in another thread. I agree with you. Marriage is such a religious term, I favor a civil union that doesn't require any ceremony. It is just like getting a drivers license. Then the couple can celebrate it however they want to. If they are religious and want a church wedding, great, have a church wedding and say the traditional vows. If the couple wants a non religious statement of vows outside the church so be it, it is done. And if the couple want just to have a big celebration that is also great. And if the couple just want to go home and fuck after getting the license, happy fucking for them.