How can some gays be so goddam ignorant and foolish?

[cboy4]

OPINION

It’s a good time to be gay - and Republican
I look forward to the day when D.C. shifts to purple or even turns red.

:wtf:


CHRIS SCALISE
Friday, November 28, 2008

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY did not have a very good November. Nationally, the Democrats increased their majorities in Congress and won back the White House. Locally, the Republican candidates for D.C. City Council lost their races, meaning that the party will have no representation on the Council for at least the next two years.

But every cloud has its silver lining and my Republican friends and I — Log Cabin and otherwise — see a bright future ahead of us because November’s elections will ultimately help the party rediscover its unifying core principles, instead of focusing on divisive social issues.

Concepts such as “small government” and “low taxes” are certainly staples of Republican rhetoric, but I’m thinking of principles that are even more foundational. These are the principles that helped Ronald Reagan win 49 states and a huge governing coalition in 1980s, and they are the principles by which the Republican Party can again become the majority party. And it’s a good time to be a gay Republican, because these are principles that have appeal regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, economic level or any other demographic.

What core principles of the Republican Party am I writing about? Ideas like these:

• Each and every individual has inherent dignity as a human being and should have the opportunity to achieve success in life.

• The role of the government is to create the conditions for that equal opportunity — not put obstacles up along the way. As Sen. John McCain put it, government should “stand on your side, not in your way.”

• You and I are best equipped to decide what is best for us and for our families.

• The government has the responsibility to take and spend citizen’s money with the utmost prudence and discretion.

I HAVE OTHER reasons to feel good about being gay and Republican. First, look at the national picture and the progress we’ve made this year:

• 75 percent of Log Cabin’s endorsed candidates for the U.S. House and Senate won their races.

• McCain received 1.3 million votes from gay and lesbian votes (27 percent of the LGBT vote compared with 23 percent for President Bush four years ago), more than any Republican presidential candidate in history. :grr: :wtf:

• McCain ran an inclusive campaign asking for gay votes and avoiding the wedge issue politics that President Bush used to win re-election four years ago.

• The Blade interviewed McCain during the campaign, the first time ever a Republican presidential nominee spoke with a gay newspaper. He expressed a willingness to support federal employment protections for gay and lesbian people. :eyes: Oh my God how naive these people are.

• Top McCain campaign advisers spoke at Log Cabin events during the Republican National Convention — an event that marked the first time the RNC officially credentialed Log Cabin.

• For the first time ever, the Republican candidate’s campaign manager addressed the Log Cabin Republicans, promising McCain would be an inclusive leader for our nation.

• Increasing numbers of Republicans support basic fairness for gay and lesbian people: 64 percent support gays and lesbians serving openly in the military (up from 32 percent 15 years ago) and almost 80 percent of Republicans don’t think someone should be fired because of their sexual orientation.

WE DON’T AGREE with McCain on every issue, but compared to 2004, these snapshots represent seismic changes in how the GOP treats gay and lesbian supporters. The use of wedge issue politics popularized by Karl Rove and company is a thing of the past.

I have even greater reason to feel optimistic being a Republican in D.C. Log Cabin’s D.C. chapter endorsed two bright, visionary, young candidates for City Council this fall — Patrick Mara and Christina Culver. The D.C. Republican Party chair, Robert Kabel, is the only openly gay Republican state party chair in the country, and he has recruited candidates who could speak to gay and straight voters alike.

I am confident the core principles that I described above appeal to even more than the 27 percent of LGBT voters who supported McCain, so I invite Blade readers who are not Republican to reconsider their affiliation and help us make the party better. I look forward to the day when it’s not just good to be gay and Republican, but great: the day our blue city shifts to purple or even — dare I say it — turns red. :puke:

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2008/11-28/view/columns/13656.cfm

This kind of stupidity makes me want to throw my computer through the window. What a bunch of dumb f*cks these Log Cabins are.

[Unvanguard]

1. I laughed very hard when I read that this morning.

DC will go Republican the day DU does.

[cliffordu]

2. Yep - Kind of amazing.

[Lerkfish]

3. I have never understood either the log cabin or the african american republican voter

why support a group that doesn't want you as a member?

boggles the mind.

[kcass1954]

5. Same here. My youngest brother is gay - He considers himself a

fiscal conservative, and was a republican for a while. He left that party when it "became painfully obvious that I wasn't welcome any more."

[slackmaster]

15. I believe I do understand the log cabins and gay GOPers in general

I know several of them personally, and "dumb f*ck" is certainly not a label I would hang on any one of them.

I think many of us are too young to remember when the national Republican Party was not under sole control of its ugliest far-right, Machiavellian, socially conservative Christian Crusader faction. We've seen their policies set by the worst of the worst, and the resulting reactionary statements from our side, e.g. the paranoid notion that Republicans as a group want to "eliminate" gays, prejudices those who have managed to stay socially isolated from the much more reasonable majority of Republicans.

Surely some log cabin people struggle with self-conflict, but the degree and character of those conflicts belongs to them and not to anyone else. The surest way to fail to understand someone else is to insist on viewing them only in the context of your own values and attitudes, which are not sacrosanct no matter how wise or perceptive you think you are.

I've watched the GOP here in California for a long time. They are seeing a resurgence now, which is being driven by social moderates and secular, tolerant people. Some of the more prominent rising Republican stars around here are Jewish. We are going to have two openly gay men on the new San Diego City Council in a few weeks. One of them, Carl DeMaio, is a young, fiscally conservative Republican. He won outright in the primary in June against a likable Democrat, an experienced fire chief named George George. An openly gay person even running for that particular seat would have been unthinkable 15 or 20 years ago. The Republicans never would have allowed one to run, but they did stand behind Carl this year. That certainly doesn't square with the notion that the GOP wants to "exterminate" gay people (as stated by Rectangle in reply #8).

[dsc]

16. negative the square root of zero, aka zero, that is the number

of Republicans in the California General Assembly that voted for a bill that would have permitted marriage equality. Conversely all but three Democrats voted for it. It passed, and would have been law, but for Arnold's (another GOPer) veto. Sorry but they are the same old same old.

[slackmaster]

18. The gerrymandering process that gave us a legislature full of "safe" R and D districts will change

In 2010, thanks to the passage of Proposition 11. If it works out, it may be possible to see someone other than people who are stuck in their far ideological corners get nominated for the state assembly and senate.

The goofy system that has given Democrats so many safe seats has had the unintended consequences of polarizing Republicans and Democrats alike, and made both parties less responsive to the people. That is why we have so many ballot initiatives in California.

[dsc]

70. so basicly

you have people voting their party positions and you have virtually all Dems supporting us and no Republicans supporting us but you think more Republicans will be a good thing. Sounds like a plan to me. A bad plan but a plan none the less.

[cboy4]

17. Sorry. It's Dumb F*uck with a capital "D" and "F"

The Republicans, if they had the chance, would vote against ever piece of pro-gay legislation they could get their hands on.

It would be no marriage, no employment and housing protections based on sexual orientation, the continuation of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and DOMA.

There is no excuse for a gay person to align themselves with a party that couldn't care less about them.

Add all of that up, and you've got a bunch of Dumb F*ucks.

As someone else said, gays voting Republican are like the chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.

It's ridiculous.

[slackmaster]

19. Your tone reminds me of General Jack Ripper

"Your commie, has no respect for human life, not even his own."

[cboy4]

24. Instead of posting lame comments, why don't you articulate

why what I just said is incorrect.

Oh that's right, probably because I have you pinned in a corner.

[slackmaster]

28. What is incorrect is that you seem think anyone who disagrees with you is stupid

That your way of looking at things is the only valid one. The problem I see is your whole attitude. You seem to be unable to accept that an intelligent, educated, thoughtful person could come to an entirely different viewpoint than yours.

Understanding other people sometimes requires deep thought. That can't happen when you jump to the conclusion that they must be stupid.

[Lerkfish]

30. um, I think people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

interpret that as you wish.

[cboy4]

36. And again, you refuse to address the issues I raised.

I want to hear you articulate why I'm wrong about the reasons I listed.

There are some things in life that are just plain stupid, and being a member of a party that is anti-gay is certainly one of those things.

How in the world can you not recognize the conflict?

So instead of articulating why my points are incorrect, you'd rather just throw out the 'ol, "you just think anyone who disagrees with you is stupid."

That, of course is ridiculous.

Now then, maybe you can still climb out of the hole you've dug.

But you won't do it with personal comments. You'll do it with facts.

I'm not holding my breath.

on edit....typo

[slackmaster]

40. The platform of a party does not control all of the attitudes of every member

How in the world can you not recognize the conflict?

Of course I recognize the conflict inherent in a gay person belonging to a party that opposes gay rights.

I'm a federally licensed gun collector and have a substantial amount of money in curio and relic firearms. Yet I belong to a party that has a platform plank a position that runs contrary to my personal interests. Does that make me stupid? No, it just means there is a conflict between my values and the officially stated position of my party. The rest of what our party stands for outweighs my conflict on that issue.

Now then, maybe you can still climb out of the hole you've dug.

I don't feel like I am in a hole at all. I feel fine.

[cboy4]

43. Oh, so now you're comparing the right to own a gun with

human rights. :eyes:

Complete apples and oranges.

[slackmaster]

44. It's a CIVIL right, just as is the right to marry

:hi:

[cboy4]

45. Yes I understand. You're minimizing the human rights

of gay people and equating them with being able to own a gun. :wtf:

Unreal.

[slackmaster]

46. You seem confused on the difference between human rights and civil rights

I can't help you with that.

Let me put it this way - Nobody is trying to prevent gay people from associating or living with whomever they choose. Marriage ultimatly boils down to property rights. If two people can't marry, the only tangible complaints they have concern ownership and transfer of wealth, and taxation. The same is true of my issues with gun control - My collection is part of my retirement plan.

Your unwillingness to recognize my rights as important is just another illustration of your inability to see things through other peoples' eyes. I'm sorry for you.

[cboy4]

48. You keep trying to nudge me away from the subject at hand,

but that's not going to work.

First of all, a civil right is a human right, so they're actually one of the same.

Secondly, you still can't explain why any gay person would sign up for a political party, whose lawmakers wish to discriminate against gay people.

Instead, your response is, well, there are people who are into guns, but yet they still go with the Democratic Party.

Unreal how you don't get it.

[slackmaster]

49. One more time

Secondly, you still can't explain why any gay person would sign up for a political party, whose lawmakers wish to discriminate against gay people.

It's no different than a gun owner signing up for a political party, whose lawmakers wish to discriminate against gun owners.

The thing is, not all Republicans want to discriminate against gay people just as not all Democrats are pushing for gun bans. There is room for a diversity of opinion in both parties.

[cboy4]

52. Do you know how offensive it is to hear someone say the

right to own a gun is no different than equal human rights for gay people?

Why are you doing this?

You have to be living on Neptune if you don't believe the overwhelming number of Republican lawmakers are in favor of continuing discrimination against gay people.

Gay people can be fired from their jobs, gay people can be denied housing, gay people cannot get married, and in some places now, like Florida, cannot even enter into civil partnerships.

Gay people cannot serve in the military. Gay people cannot donate blood.

Do you see Republicans doing anything about this? Of course not.

What is wrong with you slackmaster?

[slackmaster]

61. The fact that you call my statement inherently offensive rather than saying YOU are offended by it

Is exactly the problem I am talking about.

Gay people can be fired from their jobs, gay people can be denied housing, gay people cannot get married, and in some places now, like Florida, cannot even enter into civil partnerships.

Other than the marriage part, none of that applies in my state. The fact that a majority of Californians voted against same-sex marriage this month shows what a difficult fight you face. I am on your side BTW.

Gay people cannot serve in the military.

Yes they can, and they do.

Gay people cannot donate blood.

Lots of people cannot donate blood.

What is wrong with you slackmaster?

I submit that the real problem here is you - specifically your inability to accept that some people can have a different viewpoint and not be stupid.

[hfojvt]

65. incomplete on the last line

Lots of people can have a different opinion than me and not be stupid, they do it by being evil.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/48

[cboy4]

67. Gay people absolutely cannot serve in the military.

Yea, you can lie to get in and stay in, but that's not the way honorable people wish to be employed.

As for blood, who are all of these people who cannot donate blood? Are they healthy people like myself?

And once again, you minimize the problem of discrimination by stating that with the exception of marriage, things are peachy in your state.

As for your little word games about offensive versus offended, that's what we call semantics, and it's ridiculous.

You made a lot of subtle excuses in this thread .. especially with your comments about Don't Ask Don't Tell and blood.

I would suggest you meet some gay people and open your mind about our struggle.

Right now, you don't get it.

[slackmaster]

82. I have many gay friends, coworkers, and acquaintences, I interact with them every day

They don't all have the same attitude you do.

[bluedawg12]

54. If gun ownership is equally important to someone as equal marriage rights

then, perhaps they ARE in the wrong party?

The argument is not that,"all Republicans want to discriminate against gay people," the argument is about GOP party policy.

[slackmaster]

62. Did I say it was equally important?

No, I don't believe I did.

The argument is not that,"all Republicans want to discriminate against gay people," the argument is about GOP party policy.

And that policy is evidently not important enough to the Log Cabins for them to abandon their party over it.

[bluedawg12]

69. What you said was:

"It's no different than a gun owner signing up for a political party, whose lawmakers wish to discriminate against gun owners."

My statement is clear:

If gun ownership is as important an issue to a gun owner as gay rights is to gays, then, one should find the party that espouses their priority.

For gays to maintain a branch of the repug party specifically devoted to gay rights, when the party is hostile to gay rights seems futile, unless the main thrust of the LCR's is NOT gay issues. Yet, they claim they are devoted to gay issues.

They should consider being log cabin democrats! LOL.

Also, I have never heard such open hatred toward gun owners from dems as I have from some repugs and their surrogates.

No one has yet said my deep and personal relationship with my Glock is immoral, a direct threat to national security and a symbol of America's decline.

Also, my Glock has more rights under the law than I do. I have the right to bear arms, but I don't have the right to equal protection for marriage.

And yes, a good deal of marriage laws are about property rights, transfer of rights (including power of attorney type rights)is that a problem? That's a conservative staple and cornerstone.

Ideally, I would like to marry AND carry!

edited because I got interrupted AND don't type so hot. LOL.

[slackmaster]

83. And here we get back to the exact same problem I have with cboy4's attitude

If gun ownership is as important an issue to a gun owner as gay rights is to gays, then, one should find the party that espouses their priority.

That's very kind of you to try to help other people set their priorities for them, but it's really not your job.

[yardwork]

66. Which Democratic Party plank runs contrary to your interest in antique gun collecting?

Can you show me the language in the Democratic Party platform that runs contrary to your personal interests?

[cboy4]

23. Wrong spot.

But let me just say I agree with you CBOY 100 percent.

HA

on edit: Typed in wrong location

[slackmaster]

31. cboy4 says he agrees with CBOY 100 percent?

:rofl:

[Lerkfish]

21. did you even READ my post?

what I said was:

why support a group that doesn't want you as a member?


from that, you say I said:

1. "dumb f*ck"
and
2. the GOP wants to "exterminate" gay people.

since you used quotation marks, it seems you are acting as if you're quoting me directly. You aren't,
so I really don't know what your problem is.

[slackmaster]

25. My response was directed at other replies as well as the OP

:hi:

[Lerkfish]

27. well, next time, improve your aim: you basically called me a bigot and a slanderer.

and you know what, next time, just don't respond to any of my posts, just to make it more clear...mkay?

[slackmaster]

29. Actually Lerkfish, I meant to commend you for saying that you don't understand

Rather than simply tarring them as stupid, as the OP did. You seem to have a more open mind than cboy4 on this.

Please calm down.

I have updated my reply to clarify that the word "exterminate" was posted by Rectangle in reply #8.

[cboy4]

38. They are stupid. Just as stupid as a black person joining the

KKK .. just as stupid as a Jewish person joining the skinheads.

How can you empathize with their love of a political affiliation that is anti-gay to the max?

These are stupid people.

Okay, I'll tell you what, I'll change my description from stupid, to naive.

Because this is the same organization that voted for Bush in 00, thinking the Republicans were going to do all sorts of great things for gay people.

And naturally, the GOP didn't do shiite.

How shocking, ha slackmaster?

But yet these are smart people? LOL

[yardwork]

32. I'm old as dirt, old enough to remember that the Republican Party of yesterday led directly to today

The Republicans are in retreat from the disasters that their predominance has caused, so now they're inventing a mythical past when they were pure and good. If that were true, who destroyed the purity and goodness?

Look at the actual results of Reagan's policies, not the actor-spoken spin that was put on it at the time and has now taken on the glow of a golden age. Reagan's policies were shit.

[slackmaster]

34. If they invent a mythical past that leads them to behave better in the future, I'm all for it

Reagan is dead. Lee Atwater is dead. Newt Gingrich is a college professor. The Bush/Rove machine is on the skids. The GOP has an opportunity to re-invent itself as something positive.

[yardwork]

37. Don't hold your breath, and don't vote for any Republicans until they show those results.

In my lifetime, which I suspect has gone on longer than yours, the entire country has moved to the right. The Republican Party didn't have good ideas in the 1960s, and they're far, far worse today.

Check out this year's Republican Party platform, considered to be the most retrograde in the party's entire history. Party regulars who read it were appalled and fell all over themselves endorsing Obama.

The Republican Party has no place to go but up, that's for sure. Unfortunately, it's nose is pointed straight down into the hole they continue to dig for themselves. Ignore the hype and read their actual policy statements.

[bluedawg12]

51. There are only two things the LCR cite as progressive toward gays

"Increasing numbers of Republicans support basic fairness for gay and lesbian people: 64 percent support gays and lesbians serving openly in the military (up from 32 percent 15 years ago) and almost 80 percent of Republicans don’t think someone should be fired because of their sexual orientation."

Military and employment rights. Hell, Goldwater was for gays in the military, look how far they haven't come on that in the GOP.

Nothing about protecting gay families via equal marriage rights. Unless there is something out there in GOP policy I missed and the OP doesn't mention. But, I doubt it.

[yardwork]

55. Besides, increasing numbers of Americans favor those things, so it's no surprise that Republicans do

Only one party is actually working to improve human rights, though. The other party is working hard to destroy them.

[bluedawg12]

58. The repugs are at war within themselves

they can't decide if they want to continue the past strategy of wedge politics and socially divisive issues or if they want to return to a more intellectual footing for conservative policies.

It's their war, they are in the midst of it, how they rearrange themselves remains to be seen.

This past GE cycle, the hideous Mclame-Palin hate fests sure sounded like the same old "family values" themes and them vs. us, and those people have not disappeared. The LCR's are taking any scraps as signs of progress.

[Kalyke]

41. Heck, I've never understood the female Republican voter.

:crazy:

[cboy4]

47. Well, yes....I can see that .. I can't imagine being female and

being opposed to Roe v Wade. :crazy:

[marmar]

4. Yikes!

McCain (who supported Prop 8) ran an inclusive campaign? :wtf:


Mr. Scalise needs to stop using the hallucinogenic drugs....Quickly. :scared:

[yardwork]

33. The Republican Party platform this year included an initiative to outlaw all gay adoptions.

I guess Mr. Log Cabin Republican didn't see that part.

Edited to add: The Republican Party platform also called for a U.S. constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage and anything like gay marriage, including unions, etc.

In fact, this year's Republican Party platform is considered to be the most retrograde in the party's history. It even shocked a lot of party regulars - which is one reason so many of them endorsed the Democrat.

[rosesaylavee]

6. The only "core" issues I see remaining in the Republican Party are:

1.) pro-life/"anti-abortion" rhetoric

2.) anti-GLBT/anti-same sex marriage rhetoric

The above two issues are ALL that defines rethuglicanism now. They are not the party of small government, state's rights, fiscal responsibility, superior foreign relations or personal responsibility.

These Log Cabin Republicans are certainly in denial... not that is a surprise or something new. Quite mysterious to me how they work their heads around the apparent dismissal and dislike their fellow party members hold for them. All they represent in the larger organization are votes. Nothing more.

[TWiley]

7. Like "these Chistians" vs "those Christians" when they are all Christians?

[rosesaylavee]

9. ??

I don't understand the reference?

[yardwork]

39. Human beings have no value to the Republican Party of today.

The Republican Party of today is run by a group of psychopaths who care about nothing but their own personal power and greed. Nobody else matters to them. It's easy for them to use "family values" and other human-sounding terms in their propaganda because the terms are literally meaningless to the party leaders.

People don't matter. Employees don't matter - they can be laid off months before attaining retirement age and it doesn't matter to the deciders. Children don't matter - if they did, the Republicans wouldn't constantly fight health care for children. Families don't matter - if they did, the party would promote health care, job security, all the things families need to be strong.

No minority group matters to the Republicans. Minorities of all kinds are just votes to be manipulated against one another and used to create wedge issues.

Nothing matters to the Republican Party and its leaders except their own personal power and wealth.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

84. You Got THAT Right, Rosesaylavee

Those two planks really do define the rethuglicans. They are not gonna work for the rights of those Log Cabiners who are dumb enough to think that being LGBT doesn't matter to the others. It only matters that they get the LC votes. But then these dorks tend to vote their wallets above their rights.

[Rectangle]

8. Why join a group that wants to exterminate you??!!!

Kinda like "Jews for Hitler"

:crazy: :shrug:

[cboy4]

10. Yea, it's challenging to pick analogies without overstating

sometimes .. but in a sense, you're right.

Kinda like a black kid going into the local KKK office and picking up his robe.

[EFerrari]

11. It's hard to believe that the Republics did better by four points

and he doesn't name a source. He also gives a per centage and not a break down of a hard number. :shrug:

[dsc]

14. both are exit polls

but given a 3.5% moe that isn't statistically significant.

[HillbillyBob]

12. What f kin maroons. It is like holding 'uncle tom' up as a good civil

rights leader.
I have been out for over 27 years and am totally fed up with the log (think turd) repukes.
Traitors and maroons. RonnyRaygun passed a death sentence when he would not even mention
HIV-AIDS. I have been semi patient, but have reached the point that when someone spouts that selfservative bullshit , Im a republican, I simply say fuck off you got nothin to say that I want to hear or will listen to.
I am fed up with kkkreestians, fascists and those who collaborate.
Enough already. get out stay out begone!

[rurallib]

13. Hate for these groups is what the republiKlan party is made of

"gender, race, sexual orientation, economic level or any other demographic"
The only time the GOoPers believed in inclusiveness was about 10 years in the 1860s and 1870s.
Talk about totally deluded.

[rucky]

20. Denial's gotten them this far

why stop now?

[ChazII]

22. Interesting article. n/t

[yardwork]

26. Idiots come in all shapes and sizes. It's one reason "identity politics" is wrong.

[FLAprogressive]

35. The Aunt Marys put $$$$ ahead of equal rights. n/t

[maddowfan]

42. Self-Loathing. They Would Sacrifice Themselves For Hitler And Throw Themselves Into Concentration

Camps, "for the good of the nation." Gay Republicans have mommy and daddy issues.

[EOTE]

50. See! Nearly 2/3rds of republicans think gays are deserving of the most basic rights!

Or, at least that's what they say. And who knows, maybe in a few decades, we can bring that up to 3/4ths! And then, only 1/4th of the republican party will want gays shot on sight. The tortured logic this guy has to go through is mind boggling.

[cboy4]

53. The tortured logic some DUers have to go through is also

mind boggling.

[yardwork]

57. DU is supposed to be only for those who support Democrats

so the fact that there is anybody here defending the Republican Party is a little odd, imo.

[cboy4]

59. Yea. It's bullshit.

And then to equate gun rights with gay rights.

Outrageous.

[bluedawg12]

79. I can legally own a gun in my State, but I can't marry.

That's what makes no sense. That is what I am fighting for, equal rights under law.

[yardwork]

56. But the official party stance will remain as it is - shot on sight.

More and more Republicans will wring their hands over this but they'll still vote Republican.

[Mari333]

60. you REALLY NEED TO SEE THIS VIDEO

it will make you feel better
Gay Republicans wtf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkY8NxLZy3g

[Karenina]

71. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! SUPERB!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[fortyfeetunder]

76. This is good!

:rofl:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

63. He lives in the rarefied DC bubble.

I guaran-damn-tee he would not find a welcoming environment amongst the Republicans here in Arizona, or any other red state.

[Gormy Cuss]

64. Point by point response

What core principles of the Republican Party am I writing about? Ideas like these:

• Each and every individual has inherent dignity as a human being and should have the opportunity to achieve success in life.

The Democrat party has this core goal. We just interpret the implementation differently. For example, "the opportunity to achieve success" doesn't include the right to do so by breaking the backs of others.

• The role of the government is to create the conditions for that equal opportunity — not put obstacles up along the way. As Sen. John McCain put it, government should “stand on your side, not in your way.”

Absolutely true. The difference is Republicans think they're the only ones who deserve opportunities and anything that helps someone else have equal opportunity is an obstacle.

• You and I are best equipped to decide what is best for us and for our families.

How's that marriage thing working out for you Log Cabin types?

• The government has the responsibility to take and spend citizen’s money with the utmost prudence and discretion.

Absolutely. Prudence and discretion means that even the weakest in our culture deserve benefit from the government spending. Prudence and discretion also means that achieving equal opportunities requires that those with the most resources be asked to pay more than those with little in order to have a more equitable society.

Oh wait -- you think these are REPUBLICAN principles? Nope, not in the last 50 years. Back in the log cabin days these were Republican principles but there is exactly one Republican principle now :

"We'll talk small government while we're pillaging the Treasury."

[cboy4]

68. Excellent point by point!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[bluedawg12]

75. Repugs claim they work to "create equal opportunity?" LMAO.

Is this an example of creating opportunity? The shrubya faith based initiative for social "good," quickly perverted to target gays and then expanding into a religious witch hunt?

This is not even about equal marriage rights, these people quickly carried it into the realm of the reilgious intolerance and an even more basic right: to earn one's own daily bread.

Without a blink or any evidence of shame, or self restraint, the rw congealed in a heart beat to take advantage of power and to attack workers on the basis of sexual orientation and/or religious faith.

...........
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Berkowitz0316.htm


Salvation Army Discriminates
One of Nation's Largest Charities Sued by
Employees for Religious Discrimination
by Bill Berkowitz
www.dissidentvoice.org
March 16, 2004

All is not well with one of the nation's largest charities.

Eighteen current and former employees of the Salvation Army's social services arm have filed suit against the organization, accusing it of "imposing a religious veil over secular, publicly financed activities like caring for foster children and counseling young people with AIDS," the New York Times reported in late February. "I was harassed to the point where eventually I resigned," said Margaret Geissman, a former human resources manager who told the Times that her superior asked for the religions and sexual orientations of her staff. "As a Christian, I deeply resent the use of discriminatory employment practices in the name of Christianity."

The employees, "including senior administrators and caseworkers that are Jewish, Catholic, Protestant and nonreligious," filed their lawsuit in United States District Court in Manhattan. They're being represented by the New York Civil Liberties Union and by Martin Garbus, a well-known First Amendment lawyer. At a press conference announcing the suit, Garbus pointed out that it strikes at the heart of the president's faith-based initiative and the separation of church and state. Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, added that "It's critical at this stage of the game to put a stop to proselytizing with government money."

According to Reuters, the Salvation Army Greater New York Division receives $89 million a year in taxpayer money, mostly from the state, New York City and Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island. Anne Lown, a plaintiff and an associate director of the Army's children's services agency in New York, said that the charity employs nearly 900 people and provides services for more than 2,000 children.

The Salvation Army is no stranger to controversy revolving around issues related Bush's faith-based initiative. Six months after the initiative's unveiling in late January 2001, it was revealed that top-level administration officials had been conducting secret meetings with the Salvation Army to enlist its political and financial support for the then-flagging project. According to the Washington Post's Dana Milbank, the meetings, which included Karl Rove, the president's chief political strategist, and Don Eberly, the then Deputy Director of the newly opened White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, had been going on for several months.

An internal Salvation Army document indicated that in exchange for its support, "which included plans for an Army-sponsored $100,000 public relations campaign," the charity would receive assurances that any bill passed by Congress would contain a provision allowing religious charities to sidestep state and local anti-discrimination measures barring discriminatory hiring practices on the basis of sexual orientation.

After the Washington Post's story broke, the administration moved into denial mode, the Salvation Army backtracked, and congressional opponents of the initiative were furious. Salvation ArmyGate was one reason Bush's faith-based initiative languished legislatively on Capitol Hill for more than three years.

In retrospect, it appears that the Salvation Army didn't need any special exemption to discriminate against its employees. According to the New York Times, the plaintiffs are charging the Salvation Army's New York division of coercing them into "sign forms revealing the churches they had attended over the past 10 years, name their ministers and agree to the Army's mission 'to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.'"

Some litigants claimed they were let go "after years of working in secular jobs when they objected to signing the forms. Others," the Times reported, "said the new religious focus violated the social workers' ethics code and could have chilling effect on their work... for example, preventing them from giving condoms to people infected with H.I.V. or forbidding abortion counseling."

.........
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2006/10/31... /
Salvation Army Lobbies for Religious Discrimination
Filed under Legislation, Religion by Peregrin Wood at 8:33 am

It’s almost time for those red kettles to go up in front of grocery stores across America, and all across America, people get all rosy cheeked just thinking about doing good… forgetting about all the organizations that do as much good without making such a big show about it… without thinking about where the money that goes into the red kettle really goes to.

Among other things, the money people give to the Salvation Army goes to pay the salaries of lobbyists in Washington D.C. What, oh what, do those Salvation Army lobbyists lobby for? The Salvation Army lobbies in favor of the political agenda of the Religious Right.

There’s the time, for example, when the Salvation Army leaders met behind closed doors with the Bush White House to come up with a strategy for passing a law that would allow government-funded groups to fire people for refusing to join the religions of their bosses. Convert and praise Jesus or lose your job, the Salvation Army law said. That was a practice that the Salvation Army was already engaging in, giving religious tests to employees and telling them to take a hike if the responses were not theologically correct, taking government money all the while. The Salvation Army spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of red kettle money on that political project alone.

What else does your red kettle donation pay for? Political organizing against same-sex marriage, for one thing. The Salvation Army uses its organization to promote opposition to equal marriage rights for same sex-sex couples. The web site of the Salvation Army states, “The Salvation Army believes, therefore, that Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life. There is no scriptural support for same-sex unions as equal to, or as an alternative to, heterosexual marriage.” Catch that other part too - the only good homosexual is a homosexual who decides not to have sex for the rest of his or her life.

There’s also the Salvation Army’s history of rescinding benefits to same-sex domestic partners. Said the Human Rights Campaign, “We’re talking about health care, about providing health benefits, and what the Salvation Army has decided to do is prevent certain families from getting health care, and that’s just mean.” Salvation Army supporters responded to Portland’s request that it adhere to the city’s ordinance requiring organizations receiving money from the city government to provide benefits to same-sex domestic partners by sending hate mail with messages such as “You are a sick person who doesn’t deserve to be mayor.” Compassion?

Still want to put that money in the red kettle?

Consider the Salvation Army’s decision to put its religion ahead of the needs of homeless people in Wisconsin. When the Janesville City Council asked the Salvation Army to stop trying to convert people to evangelical Christianity with government money provided through the city government, the Salvation Army said no. The Salvation Army decided that it was more important to keep trying to convert people to Christianity than to help people in need, so it decided to stop work on a homeless shelter until the local government relented and allowed proselytization with government funds. A spokesman said that stopping its religious activities as part of government-funded programs that it administrates would stop the Salvation Army from fulfilling its mission “to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ”. The Salvation Army would let the homeless freeze outside in the Wisconsin winter weather rather than just stop telling people to worship Jesus.

Yes, government funds. The Salvation Army gets a huge amount of praise for helping people in need, but the truth is that a huge amount of the money that the Salvation Army spends comes directly from federal, state, and local government. We, the taxpayers of America, make the sacrifice, but the Salvation Army gets the credit with none of the oversight and accountability that ordinarily goes along with government programs. In 2005, for example, 95 percent of the Salvation Army’s budget for children services came from the federal government, and was used, among other things, to conduct an anti-gay witch hunt in which employees were told to look for signs of homosexual activity in their colleagues, and to expose those colleagues so that they could be fired.

The plain fact is that the Salvation Army would only conduct a tiny fraction of its charitable works if it did not receive billions of dollars of government money. Much of the red kettle money goes toward building and maintaining Salvation Army churches, like the ones Wrangell, Alaska; Griffin, Georgia; Thomasville, North Carolina; Gilroy, California; Kalispell, Montana; Fort Lauderdale, Florida and countless other places across the USA. When you throw your money into the red kettle, are you thinking about helping people in need or about maintaining the temple in Rochester, New York?

I’m not denying that the Salvation Army does some good things with its own resources, but most of the good work it does is with government resources that could just as easily go to other programs that don’t discriminate, don’t lobby the government, and don’t mix religion with social services. Let the Salvation Army support itself, and rely purely on private donations. If the Salvation Army wants to keep preaching a right wing agenda, then it’s long past time that it get off the government dole.
........

[qwlauren35]

72. I Think it's a Question of What's Important.

If gay marriage isn't important to you, and ending job discrimination and allowing gays to serve in the military is, then SOME of the tenets of the Republican party make sense.

My sister's son-in-law is probably a Log Cabin Republican. He's DEFINITELY a Republican. He and his partner are very successful DINKs, with accepting families, and rings. They are both financially comfortable, and entrepreneurial.

There is an amazing tendency here in DU to ALWAYS associate the Republican Party with the Moral Majority, Fundamentalist Christians, the Pro-Life Movement and homophobia.

But those are only SOME of the party factions.

In the same way that there are Pro-Life Democrats, who are not single issue voters, there are Gay Republicans. Heck, there are African-American Republicans. And I think it's quite myopic to think that there is nothing in the Republican platform that appeals to them.

In my opinion, the Gay and African-American members of the Republican party are a constant reminder that a.) we live in a democracy, b.) the Democratic party does not represent everyone's values and c.) some people believe in change from within.

I think the progress that the Log Cabin Republicans are citing IS significant.

The replies I see here are a constant reminder to me that some people put politics above the solidarity of race or orientation. On both sides. Even if both groups of people are attacking many of the same issues... but in different ways.

[dsc]

74. that is total hooey

ENDA was sponsered by all but a literal handful of Democrats and about a handful of Republicans. At this point the only DEMS against ENDA are Byrd of WV, Nelson of NE, and Dorgan of SD. GOPers for are down Snowe and Collins of ME and Gregg of NH (if he is even for it). DADT has similar numbers. Log Cabin people are people who live in areas that have those rights and don't give a God Damn if the rest of us ever get them.

[bluedawg12]

77. So, only some gay civil rights matter to LCR’s?

"If gay marriage isn't important to you, and ending job discrimination and allowing gays to serve in the military is, then SOME of the tenets of the Republican party make sense. - qwlauren35"

If gay mariage isn't important to them(?) ( or is it you, you speak of?), then why is he considered a son in law? That's a term that implies marriage?

The rest of your comment is interesting:

"My sister's son-in-law is probably a Log Cabin Republican. He's DEFINITELY a Republican. He and his partner are very successful DINKs, with accepting families, and rings. They are both financially comfortable, and entrepreneurial."

He is gay.

He has a partner.

He's DEFINITELY a Republican.

And he is considered your " sister's son-in-law?"

Uh..that's what gay Democrats are fighting for, I'm glad to hear he enjoys the benefits of that battle without the actual fight then?
......

I do keep in mind that you are speaking for someone else and so I really have no idea what your " sister's son-in-law?" really thinks.

[datasuspect]

73. the same way non gays can be so goddam ignorant and foolish:

they are human.

[Bucky]

78. Don't worry about that extra 4% of gay votes going for McCain. The racist liberal demog is small

This is a pretty damn funny read. Thanks for posting it. I find other people's delusions amusing. The "27% of LGBT voters went for McCain" is utter baloney, by the by. Never take the reality-impaired too seriously.

[Lyric]

80. They don't confuse me. I fucking LOATHE gay Republicans.

These are people who value their tax cuts over their own civil rights. Money, money, money. Some people think they're just "confused," but really, they aren't. They're just shallow, self-serving, and greedy. They don't give a damn about anyone else, so long as their taxes stay nice and low.

I have only met one gay Republican in my entire life, and that encounter didn't end well. A friend brought him along to a meeting of gay friends at a local restaurant on a Saturday night--he was new in town, and we didn't know he was a Republican until it came up during conversation. We were going back to my place as a group, and I flat-out told him that he wasn't welcome. I am polite and civil in public, but I will not have one of those loathsome creatures in my home. It would have been an insult to everything that my beloved partner and I have fought for to let that man step into our house. My gay friends and I do not associate with gay Republicans, because we feel that the gay social community is a gift, and these people have spurned the privilege of belonging to it.

Frankly, I wish there was some way to strip the "gay" term away from them. I'd rather see them coldly called "homosexual" than "gay." They've given up the right to that casual, informal, community moniker, so far as I'm concerned.

:grr:

[mitchtv]

81. Dumb indeed

about as dumb as Gays who think the Dems are about to do anything for us. The Dems smile to your face , then offer that back seat.