Brawl Under the Big Tent

As if the conformity mafiosi weren't bad enough with their "gay Republicans are an oxymoron" trope, there has also been a spirited battle raging in the past couple of years – mostly under the radar – within the ranks of gay conservatives, libertarians and Republicans themselves.

At the center of the big shitstorm is Log Cabin Republicans, a storm that only intensified when LCR announced in 2004 that they wouldn't endorse George Bush for President and would instead spend $1 million toward his defeat to "educate" voters on why the Federal Marriage Amendment was such a bad thing.  (For the record, I feel those decisions were fairly sensible, despite the internecine warfare and identity crisis that they were bound to precipitate.)

Perhaps as if to reinforce the sensitivity involved, LCR's press release announcing those ads is buried on their website.  Their press-release archive page begins only after that announcement was made.

The debate centers on whether Log Cabin should be primarily a gay group or a Republican one.  The head of LCR, Patrick Guerriero, planted his flag squarely in the latter camp in a December interview with The Advocate: “Are we first and foremost a Republican organization, or are we first and foremost a gay organization with a role to play inside the Republican Party? The board and I made a conscious decision on the second, and that has affected everything we have to do and continue to do.”

It's against this backdrop that LCR reached out to bloggists to cover their 2006 national convention, which is underway in Washington, D.C.  (Disclosure: I was invited to attend but am unable to travel this weekend.)  Blog-pal BoiFromTroy is filing reports, as is MeetJustin.

The convention's agenda, true to the Guerriero interview, is heavy on gay advocacy and light on issues related to ways to support and elect Republicans who are more friendly to gay causes.  This has prompted Bruce at GayPatriot, one of the most vociferous critics of Log Cabin, to issue a challenge to BoiFromTroy:

[I]f you find any actual Republicans at the Log Cabin “convention”.. please notify the media!! I’m sure you will trip over the Gay Rights Pro-Abortion Lobbyist and the Neo-Liberal-Neo-Conservative-Neo-Confused Speaker many times, though.

BFT essentially concedes the point:

While the speakers have not been Republicans (sorry Bruce) they see a potential strong ally with Gay Republicans who can certainly do some educating among the members of our party.

As usual, I think I come down somewhere in the middle on this one.

I think advocacy is extremely important: Winning hearts and minds, whether among the public or among elected officials, is indispensable.  But unlike groups such as HRC, which are at least supposed to be bipartisan and advocacy-oriented, LCR was established as a partisan, political entity supporting Republicans.  If it ceases to function as such, it might as well merge with any of the other sundry gay-rights groups out there.  (In fact, the Liberty Education Forum was established parallel to LCR to function as a non-political, 501(c)3, advocacy arm, putting LCR at risk of becoming doubly redundant.)

I do not expect Log Cabin to rush in to support people like Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum or Marilyn Musgrave, nor should they.  But as a gay man who is deeply disillusioned with the current direction of Republicans, I would feel better if Log Cabin spent more of its time and resources at helping build a better GOP: recruiting and supporting more gay and gay-friendly candidates, working harder to build bridges on Capitol Hill, and influencing the legislative process.

Log Cabin Republicans was originally established to say, "We are going to play a unique role in the gay political landscape."  Today, what they are more often saying is, "Ditto!"

Comments

[cmh]

Gosh, it's been a while since I've posted anything here. Still recovering from my last encounter I guess. Well, I'm back for another beating. First off, let me say (and this will be surprising for a pretty much left-wing oriented Democrat) that I think you're right Malcontent on what the focus and activities of the LCR should be. The question I have is how does the LCR go about doing those things when the party as a whole has pretty much signaled that it is not remotely concerned about gay and lesbian issues? The Republican Party has for all intents and purposes been hijacked by religious extremists who by their actions seem to believe that the best role for the GOP is to increasingly marginalize gays and those who attempt to act or speak on the behalf of the GLBT community. How do you attract gay-friendly individuals to a party or to get those within the party to seek political office when it is clear they will not get support from the party leadership? Ok, there's the opening salvo. Have at it.

[Malcontent]

It's pretty simply, really. Those who currently call the shots in the Democratic Party (and it really is now the Moveon.org Party) have shown the DLC the door, but that doesn't mean that the DLC shouldn't keep fighting for sane, centrist Democratic positions and candidates.

Just because the GOP isn't all that receptive to gays right now doesn't mean that it will always be thus, and that those of us who would like to see the party move back to its foundational principles should just give up.

[Casey]

Hey Malcontent,
Something worth noting - today's events were absolutely, as you noted, "heavy on gay advocacy and light on issues related to ways to support and elect Republicans who are more friendly to gay causes," but this not actually the problem you think. You noted the existence of LEF - well, today is actually billed as the LEF National Symposium, with tomorrow's events being more LCR focused (and, reasonably, I think you'll find tomorrow's schedule has a more partisan emphasis). Just an FYI.

[Michael K. Bassham]

I'm a gay Republican attending the convention right now. Bruce, of Gaypatriot.org., refuses to acknowledge that the LCR have not burned bridges with the White House or Republican members on the Hill. I know of meetings between the LCR president and others with the President and Karl Rove, and I, along with scores of others, spent hours yesterday fanning out on capitol hill talking to Republican legislators. The damage Bruce claims was done to the relationship between LCR and the Republicans just isn't true.

[North Dallas Thirty]

The question I have is how does the LCR go about doing those things when the party as a whole has pretty much signaled that it is not remotely concerned about gay and lesbian issues?

Examine the reasons why.

First and foremost, I think, is the fact that Republicans are almost completely convinced of the fact that gay-rights organizations are less concerned with gay rights than they are with sucking up to the Democratic Party.

The example why is obvious; despite their rather loud screeching that anyone who disagreed with gay marriage and supported legislation or amendments to ban it was a hateful, antigay bigot, the vast majority of gay rights groups gave tens of millions of dollars in support, their unqualified endorsement, and numerous chants of "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive" to one of those very bigots.

Second, "gay and lesbian issues" no longer means "gay and lesbian issues". Asking Republicans to support such when such also means being anti-war, anti-religion, anti-corporation, anti-Bush and pro-abortion, pro-Palestinian terrorist, and pro-taxes is a bit beyond the pale of rational expectation.

GayPatriot's point speaks well to both; namely, that if LCR wishes to be taken seriously among Republicans, it needs to ditch the "allies" that will do nothing more than alienate Republicans further and demonstrate that, unlike HRC and other so-called "nonpartisan" organization, it looks at record AND affiliation.

[Dan]

Mal, get real. Moveon.org doesn't control the democratic party. The DLC doesn't control the democratic party. In fact, if anybody out there has any idea who's controlling the democrats, would you mind letting us democrats know?

My money's still on some kind of Karl Rove/voodoo thing.

[raj]

LCR has too many problems to be taken seriously. Just a couple of them.

(i) It is far from clear what, if anything, they are doing in the national Republican party to advance equal rights for gay people. And given the rather obvious hostility of the national Republican party to equal rights for gay people, it is far from clear that LCR would ever be able to achieve anything for gay people.

(ii) Given (i) it is far from clear what they have to sell to gay people--that is, what spin would they use to encourage more gay people to vote Republican (again, at the national level). And that's probably one reason that only some 25% of gay people admit to voting Republican.

There was an LCR chapter here in the Boston area until a few years ago. A friend of mine was involved in it. They disbanded largely because of lack of interest--indeed, disdain--from the Republican party. I guess that's an indication of how interested the Republican party is in supporting the LCR--or, for that matter, equal rights for gay people.

The national LCR will, of course, have their convention, with the obligatory over-priced rubber-chicken dinner. What, if anything, comes out of the convention won't matter very much. What was the quotation "sound and fury, signifying nothing"? That pretty much describes the LCR.

[James]

North,

Quick question: Can you give me a run-down of what you consider "gay and lesbian issues."

peace

[louis]

As if the conformity mafiosi weren't bad enough with their "gay Republicans are an oxymoron" trope

Uhh Mal, that's, "moron" dear I think it's now more than safe to say, as Stones' post was pretty much case in point. Yes at this stage in the game, it would stand to reason that you gay republicans and/or closet gay republicans are FAR MORE simple and fudamental than that of an oxymoron.

NDT - THEY DON'T WANT YOU!

"wake the fuck up"

[Dan]

I'm afraid what you're saying just doens't make sense, Mal. If you're a gay republican and you want to support the GOP, but don't want to be 'weighted down' by that pesky stuff like gay rights, gay marriage, etc, then just work directly for the GOP (or one of their candidates/PACS/etc). The LCR exists for a very unique reason - to advance the recognition of gay conservatives. And if they want any respect in that arena, they need to take a principled stand on those issues that are uniquely important to their constituency. I applaud the courageousness of people like Guerriero, not because he's opposing Bush but because he's actually standing on principle. A rare sight indeed in DC.

[Casey]

Raj, you don't know what you're talking about. This is rather a frequent trend with you, but I'll just debunk this one rather spectacular example of it. You claim the Boston LCR chapter is defunct. The truth is, they are alive and well (biggest difficulty, naturally for any GOP organization, being that they are in Massachusetts) and the only reason why they don't have more than the several members in attendance at the LCR convention today that they do is that the Boston LCR chapter was invited to address the state GOP convention, which is also going on today. Now, can we kindly put an end to the "Log Cabin has no access" and "Log Cabin does nothing for GLBT folk" nonsense? It's just not true if you're willing to actually open your eyes and see what's going on.

[raj]

Casey | April 29, 2006 at 12:38 PM

Stop putting words in my mouth. What I said was

There was an LCR chapter here in the Boston area until a few years ago. A friend of mine was involved in it. They disbanded largely because of lack of interest--indeed, disdain--from the Republican party.

A Log Cabin group might have subsequently organized itself, but what I posted was accurate, according to what I had been told.

BTW, looking at the BayWindows "Community Guide" it appears that there is something called "Log Cabin Club of Eastern Mass" with a telephone number of 617-338-8220. If that is what you are referring to, I find it interesting that they eschew the use of "Republican" in their name. Are they trying to hide something?

[Yum Yum]

I like the ditziness of this blog. I'm a libertarian-leaning conservative too, but please don't get overly political.

[Kevin]

And a lot of southern states "don't want you" either. So do we flee in terror?

Or do we stand and fight?

It's obvious which side 'louis' is on. No wonder the Democratic Party is such a disaster (read Joe Klein's "Politics Lost") and the Republican Party is crumbling from the weight of its own arrogance and power-drunkenness -- because the only people willing to stand and fight are the extremists or the self-interested. It's no wonder that the gay community doesnt cultivate inspirational moral leaders with the sewage and morass that flows from sites like BlogActive and from hatred-soaked, idea-less left-wingers and right-wingers alike.

Frankly, I miss the 90s - when the slick, somewhat disingenuous Democratic White House at least paid lip service, the gay progressives actually had a few ideas left, there was still a modicum of debate in the gay movement about philosophy rather than polltesting everything down to the shoelaces, and the gay Republicans were unapologetically BOTH gay and Republican, liked it just fine and told people who didn't (on both ends of the spectrum) to go to hell.

[louis]

It's obvious which side 'louis' is on.

Yes sweetie, I would imagine it must be.

{waves to the morons way on the other side}

[Dan]

louie, dear, get a writer or something. please.

[louis]

You know what, I'll get right on that oh Danny boy!!! Oh! And until then, if what you've read of mine seems bothersome, unskilled or not up to your obvious sense of humor and intellect (and what words from whom amongst us could ever be), then just avert your eyes from my inserts and go ahead and bypass little 'ole me; as do most with good sense. Yeah; meanwhile we'll all just continue to sit in awestruck wonderment with respect to all of your well written, engaging, enightening *AND* witty posts.

[Dan]

actually that's not bad. you've obviously found your voice as a hysterical, bitter queen.

[louis]

...Profound as always. Why you must be the death life of all social gatherings.

[Queer Conservative]

louie, dear, get a writer or something. please.

Or at least a thesaurus .

[louis]

oh please QC, me not withstandidng of course, very few are as redundant as you and make no mistake that that would include your verbiage.

[Queer Conservative]

Sensitive aren't you, Louis? Or is it delicate, or easily affected, or emotionable, or touchy?

[Queer Conservative]

"withstandidng"

Is that a Norse festival?

[louis]

Yeah go with that rhetoric QC.

Okay we're on some pretty good shit here tonight at the crib and all, but what the hell is going on on SNL??!!I've been assured that I'm not seeing and hearing things but I think my peop's are pulling my leg.

{waves goodnight to the morons way on the other side}

[Kevin]

hahah i do not need to say another word. :-)

nighty night, children.

[john]

have you guys not gotten the memo that the republican party does not like gays, what the hell are you hanging around there for?

GO LOG CABIN.

there are no republican speakers because they think you are going straight to hell and don't think they should associate with you.

[john]

have you guys not gotten the memo that the republican party does not like gays, what the hell are you hanging around there for?

GO LOG CABIN.

there are no republican speakers because they think you are going straight to hell and don't think they should associate with you.

[john]

have you guys not gotten the memo that the republican party does not like gays, what the hell are you hanging around there for?

GO LOG CABIN.

there are no republican speakers because they think you are going straight to hell and don't think they should associate with you.

[tedinla]

I'm only asking because I honestly do not know much at all about this group...what has LCR accomplished? I mean, other than being viewed as a sort of oddity (and I don't mean that in a bad way), what is their ultimate claim to fame?

I don't often come across many stories about them in the news, except when they seem to have generated some sort of controversy. What would they point to if they were trying to convince someone to join? And what are they working to accomplish now?

And, again, I don't mean to sound obtuse, but I am seriously curious and would like to learn what they do....

[Dan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Mal, but from a legislative standpoint they haven't had much of an effect at all. If they have, they're so behind the scenes as to be invisible. That's kinda why I think, if anything, they should take bolder stands on gay rights. To show that, if anything, being a gay republican doesn't have mean you're spineless when it comes to protecting your own rights.

[Queer Conservative]

John: have you guys not gotten the memo that the republican party does not like gays, what the hell are you hanging around there for? GO LOG CABIN. there are no republican speakers because they think you are going straight to hell and don't think they should associate with you.

Yes, John, every Republican - every last one - hates gay people with every fiber of their being. And all Democrats just love, love, love gay people. There's not a single Democrat that doesn't just adore the moez.

Yeah. Sure.

[john]

queer conservative: "John: have you guys not gotten the memo that the republican party does not like gays, what the hell are you hanging around there for? GO LOG CABIN. there are no republican speakers because they think you are going straight to hell and don't think they should associate with you.

Yes, John, every Republican - every last one - hates gay people with every fiber of their being. And all Democrats just love, love, love gay people. There's not a single Democrat that doesn't just adore the moez.

Yeah. Sure."

i am not saying that the democratic party is perfect, i am not even saying you should join them, but if you are hitching a ride and two people stop and the first one says right out "if you enter my car i will kill you" and the other says nothing which car would you enter?.

[North Dallas Thirty]

i am not saying that the democratic party is perfect, i am not even saying you should join them, but if you are hitching a ride and two people stop and the first one says right out "if you enter my car i will kill you" and the other says nothing which car would you enter?

So Republicans want to kill all gays.

This shouldn't surprise us; after all, Stonewall Democrats is sponsoring forums where speakers shriek about how Republicans are operating concentration camps for gays.

And I for one have completely had it. I have reached the limit of my niceness and tolerance personally. I have blown well past the point of minimizing the damage that idiots who speak this at all, much less publicly, are doing.

From this point forward, any liberal or Democratic gay that does not personally repudiate the hate rhetoric of people like these can rot and burn.

I don't want "buts" anywhere in those repudiations either. You liberals and Democrats have made it clear that you think Republicans are out to kill all gays and are operating concentration camps for that purpose. Trying to weasel past the fact without making a complete refutation by going, "but Bush was" or "but this is like" will be treated as a non-repudiation. You either say this is wrong, or produce evidence to the contrary.

And john, you're the first.

[Dan]

So... about that Log Cabin story...

[Queer Conservative]

i am not saying that the democratic party is perfect, i am not even saying you should join them, but if you are hitching a ride and two people stop and the first one says right out "if you enter my car i will kill you" and the other says nothing which car would you enter?.

I'm with NDT. This absolute moonbat crap.

[tedinla]

So no one knows of anything that LCR has accomplished then, huh...?

[Queer Conservative]

Any Republicans around? Ted needs to speak with one.

[tedinla]

Ummm...thanks, QC, but I think I can handle this one....I appreciate your looking out for me, though...that's sweet.

[North Dallas Thirty]

So no one knows of anything that LCR has accomplished then, huh...?

They've nicely managed to align with Democrats and liberal gays who are all saying that Republicans want to kill gays and are running concentration camps.

As far as I'm concerned, that puts them and you completely beyond relevance.

[tedinla]

WOW! What is with you and those two wacked stories? They are eating you alive!

Again, I have no idea what those stories are in reference to, and I've never spoken of them.

Take a breath before you become apoplectic!

[North Dallas Thirty]

Unfortunately, Ted, as I've already laid out, denialism isn't one of your options. You may repudiate, or you may not.

Right now, you're in the "I refuse to repudiate" column.

[tedinla]

NDT...sweetheart....darling? What the fuck are you talking about?

Pay attention here for a moment....I. NEVER. SAID. WHAT. YOU. ARE. ACCUSING. ME. OF. SAYING. You are making it up. Those words never left my lips. They were never typed from my keyboard.

I don't doubt that someone somewhere along the way told you those stories. I mean, for chrissakes look at how neurotic it's made you--it's obviously got you freaked out. But you are wrong if you think I am in any way connected to those stories. I've never even heard them, much less repeated them!

So, I'm afraid that regardless of what you've "laid out," I'm squarely in the "denialism" camp.

[North Dallas Thirty]

I made my point abundantly clear, Ted.

From this point forward, any liberal or Democratic gay that does not personally repudiate the hate rhetoric of people like these can rot and burn.

You just can't repudiate the statements that "Republicans want to kill gays" or "Republicans are operating concentration camps" because you believe them.

[tedinla]

I suggest you read my response to you in the other comment area in which you've issued orders to me.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Yes. They made it abundantly clear that you're sitting there wetting yourself because someone's finally called you on the hate rhetoric that you and your fellow Democrats support, encourage, and perpetrate.

What's the matter? Will you lose your Democratic Party card if you say that people who say that Republicans want to kill gays and that concentration camps for gays are operating are liars and hatemongers?

[cmh]

Well, coming in from the left NDT, I would definitely repudiate any statements of the type you described. However, having spent some time in the evangelical Christian movement in my younger adult days or "back when I was straight" as I facetiously refer to that time, I have heard statements that make the ones mentioned seem benign by comparison. I an not writing this to justify the statements just to remind everyone that there are extremists on both sides of the political divide.

I sometimes wonder if folks understand the level of animosity towards gays that exists in the religious right. I truly think we have now surpassed abortion as the number one evil in this country in the minds of several in that camp. And so given their strong influence in the GOP is it really that surprising that gay activists see little value in attempting to engage the Party's elected representatives?

[tedinla]

I spent 8 years as a Southern Baptist fundamentalist Christian....do I understand the level of animosity? Much better than I want to understand it.

[North Dallas Thirty]

I sometimes wonder if folks understand the level of animosity towards gays that exists in the religious right.

Easy. Think of how YOU would feel if someone called you a "Nazi", said your religion was nothing but "superstition", and said you were trying to kill them and ship them off to concentration camps.

Falwell and Robertson look rational by comparison.

[tedinla]

NDT, you sound like a broken record. Will you please explain about those stories now? Where did you hear them and why do you keep bringing them up? What are they about?

[tedinla]

And, btw, I guess I'd feel sort of like someone who was constantly being told that he was a "sinner" who was going to "burn in hell" and was told over and over that his innate inclinations were a "choice." I suppose I'd also feel sort of like someone who is told that the relationship he has developed with the person he loves should not rate official legal recognition, and that if he were to attain the right, it would threaten the institution and jeopardize the morals of his country, and I assume I would be dumbfounded if I were to learn that the justification and foundation for instituting this discrimination is a collection of stories which were written by ancient people who could not have imagined the advances that would take place in the 2,000 years that have passed since these stories were transcribed.

I might even go as far as to feel like a person who is told that the expression of his love is so harmful that he should be denied the right to adopt kids and raise them as his own (lest the kids suffer irrepairable damage) and so demoralizing that he is told that he must agree to hide his orientation if he wants to serve his country in the armed forces (lest his unit, and ultimately the entire institution, fall apart).

I'm fairly sure I'd feel like a person who has, for his entire life, had it ingrained upon his psyche that what he feels is bad, wrong, dangerous, sick, weak, immoral and a character flaw which must be denied or reversed if he wants to be accepted by a society which, more often than not, merely tolerates him and will never embrace him or honor the courage it took for him to openly express who he is and who he loves.

Shall I go on?

[Kevin]

"And, btw, I guess I'd feel sort of like...
I suppose I'd also feel sort of like someone...
I might even go as far as to feel like a person...
I'm fairly sure I'd feel like a person who has...
Shall I go on?"

"feel...feel...feel..feel.." on and on and on...

In the context of politics and questions of national principle, who cares how you "feel" or would "feel"? I don't. Politics isn't about feeling (sorry Clintonites) -- It's about who you ARE. Frankly, I don't define myself by who hates me, or by what people think about me. I don't give a damn what people think about me. I know who I am, and I refuse to apologize to you, or to anyone else, and I refuse to change who I am. And when someone tries to change me -- or tries to fuck with me -- I push back. That's the definition, in my book, of what America is about and always was. All this caterwauling from the religious right and from the gay Left is just a lot of noise to me, and it means little in my life. I don't sit around wringing my hands waiting for the Nazi's to round me up like some paranoid nutcase on the street corner. Nor do I sit up at night thinking about eternal damnation of my soul. I live my life with pride, without fear, and with complete confidence in knowing who I am.

Who's the moron in that scenario?

[North Dallas Thirty]

So in other words, you're going to try to vote these folks out of existence, shout them down wherever they appear, and do everything in your power to destroy them, Ted.

They do the same thing.

Problem is, what you don't seem to realize is that there are a lot more of them than there are of you.

Repeating the charge of the Light Brigade is a bit overdone, don't you think?

[tedinla]

Kevin, my comments were in direct response to NDT's question "How would you feel if..." I was trying to drive home a point.

I don't sit around wringing my hands or thinking about eternal damnation of my soul, either. But that doesn't mean that I should ignore the rhetoric of religious fanatics when they attempt to inject their dogma into policy.

You wind up with the Taliban if you do.

And, NDT, it seems as though your automatic reaction to comments you disagree with is to immediately take what is said and carry it to the most extreme conclusion you can come up with.

I'm not doing everything in my power to do any of that stuff you wrote. I did not say anything like that.

And I am well aware that people like me are vastly outnumbered by people who believe in religion. That's an integral part of what I was saying.

You tried in your previous comment to justify what politico-religious people espouse and how they behave towards gay people by throwing out your Republican Killer/Concentration Camp canard. I was simply trying to point out that if you are going to do a "who-did-what-to-whom" comparison, the list is going to be incredibly lopsided.

Religious people have done (and want to do) far more to oppress the gays than the gays have done (or are able to do) to the religionistas.

And, yes, part of the reason why they get by with it many times is due to the fact that there are far more of them.

No one wants to "repeat the charge of the light brigade." But I don't think it's in anyone's best interest to throw up our collective hands and give in to intimidation either.

[Miles Mason]

julus rex afternote undulating disaster wanthrift rerebrace wheezer
Braelea Park Stud
http://www.jakesroadhouse.net