Why the Log Cabin Republicans need to buy a clue.

[Liberal Veteran]

Yesterday they were praising the Republican party as "inclusive" (apparently using a little known definition of the word) and raving about their choices to have such "open minded" people speak at the republican convention.

Are these people so stupid they don't understand that if their party were really inclusive, THEY would not have to have some semi-gay friendly republican speak for them at the convention by proxy?

They not only need to buy a clue, they need to buy a dictionary.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

1. Does "Diginity" need to buy a clue, too?

The gay Catholic group?

Taking off my partisan Democrat hat and putting on my "gay movement" hat, I think the Log Cabiners, tho we think of them as the Uncle Toms Log Cabin Club, are doing the good thing here, showing gays are indeed everywhere, even as right wingers.

I think that was part of the idea of the GLBT movement...to mainstream lesbians and gays into society, in all parts of society, all religions, occupations, and even political persuasions. The Log Cabiners seem like they are beating their head against the wall, but maybe they really ARE conservative and believe in what the GOP is about, with the exception of the GOPs embrace of homophobic political views.

They are fighting this from the inside, tyring to oppose homophobia while still being loyal to their party (whether their party deserves it or not is another question), so I, as a a gay person, grant them at least that respect.

[physioex]

2. Maybe...

But most Repugs don't like them or want them there. Most of them will simply turn and face the opposite way when a speaker from Log Cabin comes up to talk. The loneliest booth at the convention will be the Log Cabin beside the anti-war booth. Although I am not gay it seems that the Log Cabins have put their desire for wealth and money above their gay rights.

[TankLV]

7. BINGO! DING DING DING!

We have a WINNER folks!

They love money above all else - "screw everybody else I've got mine" phillosophy.

[Liberal Veteran]

3. Dignity probably needs a clue also.

There are plenty of open-minded churches.

Sorry, but allying yourself with a party that wants nothing less than for you to cease to exist is foolhardy. When your party's platform is to create constitutional amendment to turn you into a second class citizen and essentially strip you of the right of liberty and pursuit of happiness, it's indefensible.

[TankLV]

6. Just like maybe there were Jews who embraced the Nazi party's platform

minus the icky extermination thingy.

Yeah right.

So nice to have "differing points of view" on "minor" issues.

Like supporting a party that literally wants you dead.

[Neshanic]

4. What is this bizzare need to belong to a group that hates you?

I gave up my religion when the Methodists finally put it on the line. The catholic church is clear as is the reublican party on homosexuality.

Change from within? The facist right swing of many institutions has made this impossible. Spend your energy getting people elected that already believe in your rights as a human, not parsed and carefully worded platforms and edicts concerning what they believe is situational homosexuality.

[Liberal Veteran]

5. Bingo. I was raised a Southern Baptist.

How long do you think I would last if I tried to form a group to "change" their dogma from within?

[gibbsale]

8. The Problem with the LCRs

Well, really, there are many, many problems with the Log Cabin Republicans, but let's stick to some of the more fundamental issues they ought to have with President Bush:

1. As governor of Texas, he threatened to veto any legislative effort to overturn the state's blatantly anti-gay sodomy law (which restricted only same-gendered sexual conduct, not heterosexual sodomy). The Supreme Court's review and invalidation of this law has put the marriage debate front and center, and marriage/civil unions is one of the primary goals of the LCR. This also tends to be one of the issues more moderate to conservative gays feel passionately about, as anti-gay marriage laws are one of the more obvious obstacles to complete integration into the mainstream of American life. It is telling that the Federal Marriage Amendment is going to be up for vote next month in the Republican-dominated congress. Whatever happened to the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA, that would have added sexual orientation to the list of protected categories in employment matters?

2. There are major issues that have a profound impact on lesbians and gay men that are unlikely to be addressed through reform of the marriage laws. First, there is the issue of employment discrimination, which really ought to be a pressing matter. A gay kid kicked out of his home at the age of 18, suddenly left without a familial support system or any other kind of financial assistance, does not need to run into homophobia on the job. But of course this is not a major concern for the libertarian-minded LCR, many of whom are probably skeptical of civil rights legislation that protects any group.

3. There are pressing issues that do not involve matters of sexual orientation per se, but are indirectly related to gay and lesbian issues. For example, rising STD rates including HIV, especially among gay and bisexual males and even more pronounced among gay and bisexual males of color. Epidemiologists and health education experts need reliable studies of sexual trends across all groups to identify problem areas and recommend effective courses of action for behavioral modification. It is clear that ideology is more important than science in this administration, and increasingly in the Republican congress. The grants for these studies are being scrutinized by ultraconservative Republicans who believe that studying sexual behavior is equivalent to promoting it.

4. Very early on, the Bush administration sought to subsidize discriminatory religious organizations (for example, the Salvation Army) while exempting them from local statutes that protected gays and lesbians from discrimination. It is one thing for conservatives to argue that the Boy Scouts are a private organization that is free to discriminate; it is quite another to seek to use taxpayer money to subsidize that activity.

Unfortunately, the LCRs are not concerned with these issues. It has become difficult to see just what they are concerned with. If they support President Bush this fall, they will have abandoned their most basic principles for...what, exactly?

[newyawker99]

9. Hi gibbsale!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[gibbsale]

10. thanks! n/t