Gay Republican Group Won't Endorse Bush

[estranged4life]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Leaders of the largest group for gay men and lesbians in the Republican Party voted overwhelmingly against endorsing President Bush for re-election because he favors a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, The New York Times said on Wednesday.


The board of the Log Cabin Republicans voted 22-2 on Tuesday night against endorsing Bush, the newspaper said, citing a spokesman for the group.


Log Cabin in 2000 endorsed Bush against Democrat Al Gore, and in 1996 endorsed Republican Bob Dole against incumbent Democrat Bill Clinton.


The group in February criticized Bush for supporting the amendment. "Writing discrimination into our Constitution violates conservative and Republican principles," Executive Director Patrick Guerriero said at the time. "This amendment would not strengthen marriage -- it would weaken our nation."


A call to the group was not immediately returned.
Log Cabin last month supported statements by Vice President Dick Cheney, who has a lesbian daughter, that an amendment banning same-sex marriages is unnecessary.


Cheney said he believes individual U.S. states should decide whether to sanction such marriages, but accepted Bush's decision to pursue a ban as administration policy.


The group has also criticized what it calls "flip-flops" by John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, for statements that he opposes same-sex marriages but also opposes amending the Constitution to ban it.


Log Cabin, however, has supported Republican positions on what it has called "issues that bring us together: lower taxes, strong national defense, personal responsibility and a commitment to individual liberty."


About 1 million gay men and lesbians voted for Bush in 2000, Log Cabin has said.

[sparky]

Those Log Cabin Republicans are idiots. They make about as much sense as African Americans for David Duke.

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by sparky

Those Log Cabin Republicans are idiots. They make about as much sense as African Americans for David Duke.

Truer words have never been spoken...

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Originally Posted by sparky

Those Log Cabin Republicans are idiots. They make about as much sense as African Americans for David Duke.

Regardless it is believed that this Gay Republicans group helped Bush in the 2000 campaign.

Chris

[dissention]

Originally Posted by sparky

Those Log Cabin Republicans are idiots. They make about as much sense as African Americans for David Duke.

They truly are stupid when it comes to endorsing candidates. They were swatted so much by Dole, McCain, and Bush that I'm surprised they haven't disbanded. They serve no purpose other than to make me laugh.

[strandinthewind]

See - I think they are serving a noble cause even though I usually disagree with their choices for candidate and think they are mostly beating their heads against a brick wall. I mean it is easy to bash them, but harder to remember they are on the front line if you will of the worst enemies of civil rights for gay people. They are working to change those enemies from within. I think that is noble and better than no one there at all. I think it is frustrating for them because they are, like all other gay people, hated by those they are trying to change. So, I give them a little slack rather than bash them

But, everyone has a right to their opinion, etc.

[Johnny Stew]

I tend to think of the term "Gay Republican" as an oxymoron.
In regards to economic issues, etc., I can understand it... but when it comes to civil rights and equality issues, I have to admit that it completely baffles me that there are gay and lesbian Republicans.

I couldn't endorse a party that actively and vocally seeks to discriminate against me.

Jason has a good point... they're working hard to make changes within the party, and that IS a noble ideal.
It's just a shame that they're met with such resistance and animosity.
The Republican party treats them like an annoying insect, in need of a good squishing, and isn't the least bit interested in working with them or for them.

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

See - I think they are serving a noble cause even though I usually disagree with their choices for candidate and think they are mostly beating their heads against a brick wall. I mean it is easy to bash them, but harder to remember they are on the front line if you will of the worst enemies of civil rights for gay people. They are working to change those enemies from within. I think that is noble and better than no one there at all. I think it is frustrating for them because they are, like all other gay people, hated by those they are trying to change. So, I give them a little slack rather than bash them

Well...... for me, politics is more of an overall war, rather than a few selected battles. The social aspects of U.S. politics are infinitely more important to the average gay person versus any kind of financial/"less government" crapola.

They would be much better served if they tried to sway Democrats to a more fiscally conservative postition, rather than trying to get scuzzbag Republicans to give up their bigotry. At least then they'd be serving the best interests of gays, while attempting some form of fiscal reform.

Anyone with a brain can see that Democrats are much more open minded to the idea of controlling government waste and fair tax reform versus the republican perspective towards the "gay agenda".

Log Cabin republicans are just greedy bastards. They sell-out gay rights and self-respect for the love of the all-mighty dollar. The best way to fight against republicans is to strengthen the Democratic party- not to support your enemy.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by The Tower

Well...... for me, politics is more of an overall war, rather than a few selected battles. The social aspects of U.S. politics are infinitely more important to the average gay person versus any kind of financial/"less government" crapola.

They would be much better served if they tried to sway Democrats to a more fiscally conservative postition, rather than trying to get scuzzbag Republicans to give up their bigotry. At least then they'd be serving the best interests of gays, while attempting some form of fiscal reform.

Anyone with a brain can see that Democrats are much more open minded to the idea of controlling government waste and fair tax reform versus the republican perspective towards the "gay agenda".

Log Cabin republicans are just greedy bastards. They sell-out gay rights and self-respect for the love of the all-mighty dollar. The best way to fight against republicans is to strengthen the Democratic party- not to support your enemy.

Well, they are not selling out here because they are not supporting W solely because of his stance on the hate legislation

I think the Democrats are not exactly the best friend of homosexuals. I mean look at Clinton who talked a great game but could not come when called for during his entire presidency a la the DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, AIDS funding, etc. So, I think and essentially always have said that while the Democrats may appear friendlier on the surface (how could they not when compared to the Republicans actually put forth the legislation the D's vote for ), the facts suggest both parties need changing through education and the LCR are trying to do just that. I do not see how that can be a bad thing

Note: I make no comment on the fiscal policy of either party in this argument. That is another argument for another day

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, they are not selling out here because they are not supporting W solely because of his stance on the hate legislation

No, they ARE selling out because by choosing not to support anyone (instead of supporting Kerry) they are allowing Dubya a numerical advantage- which is soooooo important this year. Basically, they're just another form of Nader for this election.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think the Democrats are not exactly the best friend of homosexuals. I mean look at Clinton who talked a great game but could not come when called for during his entire presidency a la the DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, AIDS funding, etc. So, I think and essentially always have said that while the Democrats may appear friendlier on the surface (how could they not when compared to the Republicans actually put forth the legislation the D's vote for ), the facts suggest both parties need changing through education and the LCR are trying to do just that. I do not see how that can be a bad thing

Democrats are the best friends we've got at this point- meaning those that actually have a chance to do something with regard to gay rights. Remember, these kinds of social changes take decades to come to fruition. Any baby step is welcome from me.

Besides, Clinton had to compromise. He had no choice in the matter and I greatly respect him for all of his extraordinary efforts. Diplomacy is key. If I had been President during his term, I would have issued the executive order as Commander in Chief dissolving all military discrimination against homosexuals. I also would not have been re-elected. Thank gawd Clinton had the vision to try to get the best deal he could during the climate of the time AND that he was able to be re-elected.

Hell, if he could be on the ballot for this election you bet your ass Dubya would definitely be history!

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think the Democrats are not exactly the best friend of homosexuals. I mean look at Clinton who talked a great game but could not come when called for during his entire presidency a la the DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, AIDS funding, etc. So, I think and essentially always have said that while the Democrats may appear friendlier on the surface (how could they not when compared to the Republicans actually put forth the legislation the D's vote for ), the facts suggest both parties need changing through education and the LCR are trying to do just that. I do not see how that can be a bad thing

I applaud the Democratic party for their stance against anti-gay policies, though I do feel any criticism that they're not doing enough, is certainly justified.

I feel their hearts are in the right place, but then they flinch and back down in order to not entirely alienate people on the cusp.
It's understandable... you have to appeal to as many people as possible. And that's not an easy thing to do. You also can't put any one group's needs above any other's.

However, I also feel that there are times when they should be more forceful on certain issues. They need to make a very vocal stand, not a wimpy one.

Life is all about compromise... but then there are times when we have to know what's too important to compromise.

As I've said, I'm perfectly willing to compromise on the "gay marriage" issue... so long as civil unions are recognized by all, and so long as civil unions are re-structured to allow gay couples the maximum amount of protection and rights possible.
And I'm not talking about special rights... I'm talking about EQUAL rights.

If religious institutions and conservative groups want to protect the word "marriage," then fine... let them have it. It's just a word.
Just so long as my rights are equal to those of heterosexuals, I'd gladly find another word to describe the relationship between my mate and myself.

So yes, I am disappointed that our Democratic politicians often talk a good game, and then flinch when the chips are down... but, and I've said this a million times, at least they are not actively seeking to further limit our rights, like the Republican party is doing.

I agree with Tower, that the Log Cabin Gays would be better served by trying to make the needed improvements to the Democratic party, rather than trying to budge those stubborn, immovable elephants.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, they are not selling out here because they are not supporting W solely because of his stance on the hate legislation

Honey, they sold out when they endorsed Dole and Bush a few years back.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think the Democrats are not exactly the best friend of homosexuals. I mean look at Clinton who talked a great game but could not come when called for during his entire presidency a la the DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, AIDS funding, etc. So, I think and essentially always have said that while the Democrats may appear friendlier on the surface (how could they not when compared to the Republicans actually put forth the legislation the D's vote for ), the facts suggest both parties need changing through education and the LCR are trying to do just that. I do not see how that can be a bad thing

Surely you can't suggest that Democrats aren't better than Rpeublicans when it comes to gay rights. That's just absurd. If it weren't for the Democrats, the Constitutional amendment would have passed in the Senate, my dear. If weren't for Democrats, Vermont wouldn't have same-sex civil unions. If it weren't for the Democrats, gays wouldn't be able to serve in the military at all. Give credit where credit is due.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

. . . Surely you can't suggest that Democrats aren't better than Rpeublicans when it comes to gay rights. That's just absurd. If it weren't for the Democrats, the Constitutional amendment would have passed in the Senate, my dear. If weren't for Democrats, Vermont wouldn't have same-sex civil unions. If it weren't for the Democrats, gays wouldn't be able to serve in the military at all. Give credit where credit is due.

No, I said (emoticons omitted):

I think the Democrats are not exactly the best friend of homosexuals. I mean look at Clinton who talked a great game but could not come when called for during his entire presidency a la the DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, AIDS funding, etc. So, I think and essentially always have said that while the Democrats may appear friendlier on the surface (how could they not when compared to the Republicans actually put forth the legislation the D's vote for ), the facts suggest both parties need changing through education and the LCR are trying to do just that. I do not see how that can be a bad thing

_______________________________________________________

So, yes, the D's are marginally and comparatively better, but they are far from the ideal that people seemingly suggest and flock to somewhat blindly and IMO based on unsupported rhetoric esp. from Clinton I mean the DOMA initiated and fosters the same hate that W seeks to perpetuate in a Const. Amendment and Clinton signed that in his lame duck term. There is no explaining that one away - at least for me AND - yes, gay people are allowed to serve in the military as long as they never tell anyone anything about the lives they are risking for their country

In the end, I think all politicians are slime on this issue with the sole exception of Howard Dean, and he is pretty slimy on most other issues Such is the current politics - "pick the one that offends you the least"

[dissention]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

Here is what the LCRs sent out via email:

Log Cabin Republicans National Board has decided to withhold
its endorsement from President Bush. Below is the text of a news
release sent out this morning that outlines our principled
reasons for this decision. We appreciate your support as we work
to build a more inclusive Republican Party. Together, we can
build a better Republican Party and a stronger America.
------------------------------------------------

News Release
For Immediate Release
September 8, 2004

Sounds like a lot of hot air and pussy-footing around. And I'm going to call Christopher Barron to tell him that, too.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by dissention

Sounds like a lot of hot air and pussy-footing around. And I'm going to call Christopher Barron to tell him that, too.

Is there any organization that has your number blocked yet?

Seriously though... give 'em hell, Harry!