unique visitors since July 27, 2005

« Everything's Coming Up Rosie | Main | Ryan, Rock, and the Rest »

April 04, 2006



Mike who?


I really did not get that post when I read it yesterday. I mean I understood what he meant but what's the value. It's like everytime a young hot actor bursts on to the stage someone tries to out him. Just let people be who they are and live the life they want to live it. If he wants to drag tired old Bo around then let him.


I am SO surprised, I mean, it's like so totally out of character.


I didn’t see the part where “being ‘gay’ is the worst possible thing one can be” is mentioned or even alluded to. I think Mike was pointing to the inherent hypocrisy in being gay and serving in a Republican administration that is anti-gay – for example, when the administration supports changing the Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage; or when it rewrites the rules for allowing gay men and lesbians to receive national-security clearances; or when President Bush, in discussing adoption of children, says that “the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman."

Today’s Republican party doesn’t think gay men and women deserve the same rights and privileges as other Americans. This is why I have such difficulty understanding gay Republicans. Sure, I get that they support a particular foreign policy or have differing views on the economy. But even if they support the Republican party on those or other issues, it seems that the “gays are bad” message that the Republicans promote would trump those issues. “Yes, I agree with President Bush’s views on foreign policy – I’ll just overlook the fact that he wants to alter the Constitution solely to enshrine discrimination against me and all other gay men and lesbians”. I don’t understand how one can leave the anti-gay views of the Republicans out of one’s decision-making process.


But even if they support the Republican party on those or other issues, it seems that the “gays are bad” message that the Republicans promote would trump those issues.

Who I have sex with, or even marry, is generally less important in the scheme of human or even American history compared to, say, how we answer questions of foreign policy or manage programs like Social Security and Medicare (as Mal's latest post points out).

Rogers entire shtick is dependent wielding hatred against gay individuals and reliant upon homophobia to push his agenda.

Sorry, there's no way that can be declared a good thing in any form. You have to have some measure of self-loathing to look at a gay man with disdain, simply because he's gay. That's something Rogers and his supporters regularly peddle in.

Even then, it's not obvious Bolton is gay. Rogers gathers together every stereotype, protoclue, and prurient speculation he can to go after his political opponents. Whenever anyone decries McCarthyism, it's interesting to note they rarely take notice or heed of Rogers' tactics when doing so.


"Who I have sex with, or even marry, is generally less important in the scheme of human or even American history compared to, say, how we answer questions of foreign policy or manage programs like Social Security and Medicare"

But it's not just about sex or marriage for you as an individual. It's about tens of millions of gay Americans who are proscribed from full participation in American society. I think this certainly ranks on par with foreign policy and Medicare.

I also thought it was interesting that you mentioned Social Security. I'm guessing you and I have different views on how (or even whether) it should be administered. However, leaving that aside for the moment, let's assume Social Security will still be around when we're ready to retire. Is there any reason that our respective same-sex partners shouldn't be entitled to receive our benefits after we shuffle off this mortal coil, just as they would if they were the opposite sex? Again, I'm not trying to debate the rights and wrongs of Social Security - I only point out that the fact that this is one of many, many areas in which gays are treated differently under the law than others.


I'm not saying questions of same-sex policy aren't important, simply that many gay individuals have different priorities when it comes time to rank their political interests.

Take foreign policy for example. Political Islam is a highly deadly form of ideology to homosexual individuals. Now, here in America, we don't feel the effects of it. We're a fairly shielded, comfortable group. Not perfect by any means, as there are inequalities built into the American system. However, a cop isn't going to come arrest us for execution, and our families are generally not going to garrot us in our sleep.

Those things are common in political Islam. Now take that ideology, and spread it west into modern Europe. Violence against gay people on the continent is way up. Religious organizations, even of the moderate kind, rely on rhetoric far more extreme, and they have followers who are all too willing to heed the call to violence. When called on it, they hide behind multiculturalist platitudes and identity politics - rhetoric and defenses often championed by people on the left.

Now, someone like me wants a very fierce defense of western liberties and values in the face of that ideology. So, I might be tempted to vote conservative. I want an American government with a foreign policy that will oppose the spread of that ideology.

So that's one way a gay individual may be perfectly justified in voting Republican. No doubt, there are a lot of different issues, including domestic same-sex policy, that will determine mine or someone else's ultimate vote. But people like Rogers deny there is any justification, any good reason, any motivation other than self-hatred and a desire to oppress gay people, as cause to vote for the party he doesn't like.

Rogers and people like him aren't interested in nuanced thinking about policy, about tackling a lot of different issues all at once. For them, it is all gay, all the time. For them, if you do not share their politics almost identically, you are a traitor to the community and deserve to be treated horribly for it.

Do you understand why someone like him is so objectively repugnant to notions of tolerance, advancement, or the cause of the gay community?


Well, let's be honest, Bolton does have a touch of gayface.


I agree with Robbie's basic point, except that as a somewhat legally married gay guy and one who believes strongly in the institution, I probably feel a little more strongly about that issue than most.

It's about tens of millions of gay Americans ...

Not to get all anal, but assuming the generally remarked rate of 3-5 percent of Americans being gay, that gives us an upper range of about 15 million, so not technically "tens of millions." (I tend not to believe those who baselessly assert "10 percent.")

Queer Conservative

Shhhh, Mal. Numbers are very, very important in identity politics.


Should I? Oh why Not- I’m torn- It’s no secret I don’t have much love for the party of Delay and Bush, however I don’t think all Republicans are bad. It’s just that in every area of policy Robbie mentioned I think the Democrats have better policies. I do think that Robbie, in relation to Rogers, fails his own nuance test. Identity politics are a fact of life. Pointing out the sexuality of someone actively working against the interest of the larger gay community is akin to an abolitionist pointing out the mixed-race children of a slaveholder. Robbie, and others, would have us do away with scorn as a political weapon (I suspect it would be a unilateral disarmament on our part). I can’t speak to the personal character of Rogers, and I sometimes think he goes after individuals unfairly, but to dismiss all of his “work” as the product of self loathing borders on histrionics.

Queer Conservative

Robbie, and others, would have us do away with scorn as a political weapon...

Do away with scorn? Not Robbie.


Tommy, there are marked difference from your comparisons, however. For one thing, we never know who is and is not gay. Sometimes you can look and say, "Yeah, they're a 'mo." Sometimes you really have to dig and create a web of references and cross-references based on stereotypes. With someone like Rogers, he simply enjoys making the accusation. What if they're not gay? Doesn't matter. He uses sexuality like a smear. He perpetuates stereotypes by picking up on any "typical gay behavior" and jumping up and down and screaming "I've spotted a fag!"

There is plenty wrong with that, no matter what the justification.

And hey, I'll have you know I think scorn is a great political weapon =)

I do think Rogers is self-loathing, but not just over the gay stuff. He seems like a miserable individual altogether, a small man who gets way too much pleasure out of being hateful. Read his comments section sometime. You can almost sense the people stroking themselves while screaming epithets into cyberspace. I wouldn't care to know any of them, regardless of their politics.


Robbie. Are attacks on the homosexuals really on the rise in Europe? I hadn't heard that. Why?


Islamic immigrants, mainly in urban areas. They're not a fan of the gays. Jews are getting it even worse.

Though, British white youth seem to be giving them a run for their money lately. Every other day it seems like there's a new attack in England.


Sounds like they need a "Pink Posse"

Queer Conservative

I first heard of the increased in gay bashing in Europe when Chris Crain, the editor of Southern Voice (the Atlanta gay paper), and his boyfriend were attacked by some Islamic "youths" in Amsterdam - during Gay Pride no less.

According to a lesbian acquaintence who lives over there - it's getting quite scary lately.

Queer Conservative

No no, Tommy, one must respect the poor downtrodden Muslims' right to express their outrage with a culture that marginalizes them and doesn't respect their right to kill people they disagree with. No Pink Posse's for them.


When your a jet, your a jet from your first cigarette to your last dyin day . . .

Queer Conservative

When you're an Islamofascist, your an Islamofascist from your first infidel beheading to your last homicide bombing...


thats not even a good book


ummmm...to be continued when i'm not buzzed from the too long happy hour :-)

tommy athens, ga

North Dallas Thirty

But even if they support the Republican party on those or other issues, it seems that the “gays are bad” message that the Republicans promote would trump those issues.

Well, the problem is, Eric, we've seen what you and your fellow gay liberals call "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive".

We've also noticed about Mike that, among other things, he doesn't seem to have a problem with gays working for antigay politicians who support stripping gays of rights.

In short, we've figured out that "antigay" in your and Mike's lexicon means "not Democrat" and has little, if anything, to do with what a politician actually advocates.

Mike Rogers

Wrong again, Dallas....

All you need to do is ask the following House members if I out closeted gay Republicans who are pro-gay:

1.______________ _____________ (R-___)
2.______________ _____________ (R-___)
3.______________ _____________ (R-___)

Oooops...If I told you who they were, it wouldn't make much sense. Poke around DC ...it's not that hard t find them....


Did I mention that I'm proud to have a blog where NDT's comments are actually welcome?

The comments to this entry are closed.