For Gay Republican Taylor Garrett, Willful Ignorance Is Bliss

[William769]

For many lesbians and gays, the idea of someone who is lesbian or gay being for the Republican Party is just baffling, and yet, there are lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans Republicans out there. In truth, it takes a certain amount of either blind arrogance or willful ignorance, at least for the majority of LGBT Americans out there. What it takes, in actuality, is a desire to put equality, rights and personal happiness second to serving the will of the oligarchy.

In truth, many of these LGBT Republicans sound like they are refugees from the 1970′s, and may, indeed, be largely hold-overs from the days when being gay meant parties, promiscuity and a ‘bugger all’ approach to life. Back in the 1970′s, the gay culture was a very different place because, well, it was dominated by gay men. By and large, lesbians were part of the Women’s Movement, and trans people were kind of viewed as social pariahs. Gay men saw trans women as traitors and lesbians saw them as interlopers.

Taylor Garrett is hardly happy with how the Republican Party is being seen by the LGBT Community. The only way to explain his recent rant on the Huffington Post is willful ignorance. He was very upset over a recent letter posted on the Huffington Post regarding the views of the Republican Party. On the Huffington Post he wrote:

http://lezgetreal.com/2012/01/for-gay-republican-taylor-garrett-willful-ignorance-is-bliss/

[Kurska]

1. Woah woah woah, what did she just say?

"In truth, many of these LGBT Republicans sound like they are refugees from the 1970′s, and may, indeed, be largely hold-overs from the days when being gay meant parties, promiscuity and a ‘bugger all’ approach to life. Back in the 1970′s, the gay culture was a very different place because, well, it was dominated by gay men. By and large, lesbians were part of the Women’s Movement, and trans people were kind of viewed as social pariahs. Gay men saw trans women as traitors and lesbians saw them as interlopers."

What the hell does this mean? Gay culture only became meaningful and political when women became involved? In the 70's it was apparently nothing but roaring parties because those poor gay men didn't know any better.

What an utter crock of shit. Women were plenty involved in the early gay rights movement and gay men aren't only animals that just want to party and have sex. Where does she get off throwing half of her own movement under the bus? This article is not fit to be posted in the LGBT group because is bashes half of the people in this group.

Harvey Milk gave his life for this movement in the 70's, yet gay men back then only wanted to party and have fun? Are you kidding me?

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Not to mention that the Stonewall riots happened in 1969.

It is a rather broad brush being used.

Suffice it to say that there was a distinct plurality of people in gay culture involved in partying and the "bugger all" approach to life, just as there are now. And I guess I can see that mindset being more conducive to libertarianism, and thus the attraction of the Republican party as seen as a haven for libertarian-minded people.

But I'm sure there were plenty of people who were able to give a damn about gay rights, working for the community and then partying their asses off all night - Harvey Milk actually would be a great example of that, from what I understand.

But I don't agree that this article doesn't belong here. Bring it here and let's discuss it. There's no better place to do that than here.

[Kurska]

4. Maybe I'm dissapointed that someone who would claim to be an advocate for the movement

would bash gay men with the same broad brush of "all they want to do is party" that conservatives do.

I at least think that since the OP posted this article, they should explain if that view is representative of theirs.

[William769]

5. Sorry I can't help you with your literary skills.

And any regular member of this group knows what my views are. maybe you should try reading who's quoting what in the article.

Have a nice day.

[Kurska]

7. Ad hominems aren't appreciated.

"In truth, many of these LGBT Republicans sound like they are refugees from the 1970′s, and may, indeed, be largely hold-overs from the days when being gay meant parties, promiscuity and a ‘bugger all’ approach to life. Back in the 1970′s, the gay culture was a very different place because, well, it was dominated by gay men. By and large, lesbians were part of the Women’s Movement, and trans people were kind of viewed as social pariahs. Gay men saw trans women as traitors and lesbians saw them as interlopers. "

You see NOTHING wrong with that series of statements? The meaning of it to me seems to be "Gay Republicans have a view of gays based in the 70's, where gays just want to party. Those views were correct then and wrong now because Lesbians and trans women are involved in the movement". If you have an alternative interpretation please go ahead and present it.

[yardwork]

22. He didn't say that he saw nothing wrong with the statement. He posted the column for discussion.

[Kurska]

23. I asked him if he did or didn't.

If he does he can say so, if he doesn't he can say that or if he'd prefer to say nothing it is up to him.

[yardwork]

25. The poster has answered your question several times in this thread.

[DURHAM D]

6. Were you around over 40 years ago?

Its not bashing - its an observation. And the observation is mostly focused on Republicans.

[Kurska]

8. It is an incorrect and bigoted observation.

Gay men AND women struggled mightly in the early days of our movement. Those statements drive a wedge between gay men and women while glossing over the long valiant history of our movement.

Yes the article is "mostly" focused on gay republicans. Someone can spend 99% of the time making a good point, but if they spend 1% of it pissing on the grave of a person like Harvey Milk, I'm not going to just let that stuff float on by.

[DURHAM D]

9. You are only looking for a point of departure, some small point to argue.

I think you are here to try and start a fight between lesbians and gay men.

I thought you just hung out in the gun forum.

[Kurska]

10. I am a gay man and I value the unity of the entire LGBTQ movement.

Frankly, I think the section quoted in the OP is equally inflammatory toward gay men and lesbians. It disregards the early contributions of lesbians to the gay rights movement and even more openly assaults the character of gay men.

[DURHAM D]

11. If you value the unity then quit throwing stink bombs.

done

[Kurska]

13. I'm not going to keep my mouth shut when I see something obviously wrong.

Not done.

[dsc]

12. I was

albeit I was only a few years old, but I did exist. I have to say I find the article a bit unfair to gay men of the 1970's who helped get us some of our early victories. I have to say that to the extent the gay GOP dates from the 1970's it is because in the 1970's the parties were actually pretty similar on lgbt rights. Ford and Carter were pretty much identical on them and the Log Cabin GOP predates the Stonewall Democrats. It was the rise of the moral majority and their takeover of the GOP that led to the parties being very far apart on lgbt rights. In fairness to our 1970's brethern it wasn't nearly as ridiculous to support GOPers back then as it is now.

[William769]

14. A steamy but sobering look at gay life in the '70s

Lovett gets a handful of the era's survivors to regale us with memories of anonymous public sex on the West Side piers and in bathhouses, abandoned buildings, the backs of bars, and the unlit carriages of trucks. (Beds, presumably, were too bourgeois.) Scores of archival surveillance-like photographs are provided of men spied through windows and doors having sex with each other.

One gentleman estimates that on any given night thousands of men would show up in the West Village. They had sex on the brain -- and the elbows, and the shins. And even if you didn't catch an STD, some encounters could be hazardous to your health. Bodies were found floating in the Hudson, and one guy says if he left after a hookup with his wallet and an orgasm, he considered himself lucky.

Public sex was also steeped in a sense of politics. More than one interviewee explains it as a reaction against repression. In other parts of the country, gay men were criminalized, ostracized, and institutionalized. New York City was an oasis, a place for gay men to find themselves and others like them. Their libertinism was as countercultural and distrustful of authority as the antiwar movement and the black-power struggle were.

It was also kitschy. Lovett unearths a television commercial for a Manhattan bathhouse and gym called Man's Country. While the camera cruised the establishment's various nooks and crannies, a narrator bellowed, ''Come to Man's Country to develop your body -- or a friendship with someone else's."

http://articles.boston.com/2006-02-03/ae/29247457_1_gay-men-fire-island-larry-kramer

I have to say when it comes to LGBT, we have to take the bad with the Good. Grant you I was a young tyke at the time but I have seen many Documentaries of what life was really like then.

I should also mention I'm pissed I had to come of age in the 80's and not the 70's.

[dsc]

15. I am not saying they were all monks

but one can be a horndog and still be a decent citizen.

[William769]

16. I agree with that whole heartedly.

I think they were all decent. Given how our community was treated at the time " Public sex was also steeped in a sense of politics. More than one interviewee explains it as a reaction against repression. In other parts of the country, gay men were criminalized, ostracized, and institutionalized." I don't blame any of them one damn for for their actions. And yes I believe their actions then have helped to get us to where we are now. I am proud today of where we have come from, and we are yet to go.

EDIT: I would also like to point out that the basis of this article is the ignorance of of Gay people that belong to the republican party. All the stink raised about life in the 70's detracts from that message.

[Kurska]

17. I saw part of the OP as helping contribute to that ignorance through revisionism.

Well intentioned or not, I don't believe such sentiments that drive wedges in our community should go unaddressed.

[DURHAM D]

18. I guess I am older than most anyone here.

Beginning in the 70s I spent a lot of time in the Village, Fire Island, SF, P-Town, Key West, etc. If I were to describe the scene no one would believe me. I am glad to see your post. It is accurate.

Back then myself and my partner were often the only women in a bar or at a house party. Well actually sometimes there were other women there but they were straight. Our set of male friends were wonderful and inclusive but I would love to have a $1 for everytime we walked into a gathering and some coward shouted out "Who brought the cunts? or Who brought the dykes?"

By the mid-80s that behavior was starting to pass but it happened to me as late as 2000 in North Carolina when I went to a Christmas party with two young men in their 30s. None of us had dates that evening but each of us had a party we wanted to attend so it was decided we would do all three together. The first one was a couple that one of the young men knew from work. I did not know them but when my friend described them as being in their 60s I explained to him that I might not be welcomed. My two young friends thought I was crazy. I tried to get him to call ahead but he thought it was stupid. The last thing I said as we arrived at the door was "This is not going to go well". When one of the hosts opened the door he suddenly had a horrified look on his face. We stepped into the foyer, it was awkward, and he did not ask if he could take my coat. As we moved toward the great room everything went silent. I was the only female present. And then from back by the bar came this -"Who brought the cunt?". My companions were stunned and quickly angry. I laughed and quietly said "Told ya". My guys could not get over it. They were beyond shocked. We left immediately.

But let me add this - during the early years I (we) often received a lot of shit from our lesbian friends for running around with the guys and for having mixed parties. Again by the 80s everyone was pretty much over it. But the early distrust was a two way street and was, thank god, generational.

Edit to add: Another common slur was "Do you smell the dead fish?"

[Kurska]

19. I'm sorry that you were treated poorly like that.

Last edited Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:51 AM - Edit history (1)

That said, The core of my argument wasn't that there was perfect unity between gay men and lesbians at that time (It is awfully sad how the oppressed will often treat their fellow oppressed people), but that party scene or not much of the leg work toward gay rights was done in the 70's and earlier by very brave men AND women. It does a disservice to the entire community to imply that gay men only partied then before women became involved in the gay community or that women weren't involved in the early gay rights movement. That is the message I received in the OP and I object to your treatment in those days as much as I object to that message.

[yardwork]

21. Many articles and columns are posted here for discussion without comment by the OP.

That's what this is, a discussion board. We discuss things here. You have expressed your opinion about the column linked here and defended your point of view with facts and examples. There's no need to pick on the long-time DUer who posted this. He didn't say that he agreed. He posted this for discussion.

[closeupready]

3. Frankly, being a gay Republican is being a chicken for Colonel Sanders.

The older I get, the less I care about what their views are. Bipartisanship is for fools.

Though thank you, William, for posting the article here - gives me a chance to say my $0.02.

[xchrom]

20. as some one who was a left coaster in the 60s and bi-coastal in the 70s --

it was fuckin WILD out there.

even peoria was wild -- i remember crowded nights cruising the river side there.

and there were certainly tensions between the lesbian and gay community -- and trans folk were treated as not there.

now taylor is a smarmy, smug little asshole that nobody know anything about except he made it to A List texas tv show.

[Fearless]

24. "Taylor Garrett is hardly happy with how the Republican Party is being seen by the LGBT Community."

Someone never learned cause and effect relationships. Imagine that you insult, harm, threaten harm, and all else hate a group that they will, by and large, look upon you with contempt! Someone needs a hard dose of reality.