Can a gay person morally be a Republican?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2006-06-05 03:33pm

I guess what I'm asking is whether a gay person can in his right mind be a Republican with the primary party planks in this difficult election year being essentially "Gay marriage Ban"

The President has the country in a war that it is dragging the country down into with endless cycles of violence with no real end in sight and an exit stratefy that is as AWOL as the WMD's that we went in there looking for in the first place.

An economy where the consumer confidence levels are taking some of the biggest plunges in years, gas prices soaring, Big Oil companies making the average American lick their taint and deep cuts in security (the bread and butter of this awful awful administrtaion) causing a stir amongst big cities.

Poll Numbers are down in the toilet, the Republican leadership seems to be crippled and what is their response? "No more gay marriages" They want an amendment that essentially institutionalizes discriminiation against a wide swath of people in this country.

If you are one of those people, how can you with any sort of clean conscience support a political party that wants to take away your civil rights? Isn't this akin to a black man supporting the racists governments of the Deep South of being Pro Jim Crow laws or a Jew supporting Hitler after the yellow stars start getting handed out?

When is it no longer morally defensible to be a "log cabin Republican"?

That NOS Guy · Post by **That NOS Guy** » 2006-06-05 03:38pm

IIRC hasn't Dean gone on the record as saying the Dems don't support Gay Marriage either?

Not that I'm a fan of the way the Republicans have been doing just about anything lately, it just seems both parties are on the same page there.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2006-06-05 03:41pm

I suppose if you try and support Republician candidates that aren't evil in the primaries you could be a Republician and moral. Someone should try that.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2006-06-05 03:42pm

Log Cabin Republicans.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2006-06-05 03:42pm

That NOS Guy wrote:IIRC hasn't Dean gone on the record as saying the Dems don't support Gay Marriage either?

Not that I'm a fan of the way the Republicans have been doing just about anything lately, it just seems both parties are on the same page there.

There's a difference between Dean's naked vote grabbing which has been shouted down by the rest of his party and I don't think a Democrat would actively call for an amendment to the Constitution. The Republican are actively trying to circumvent the courts by going directly to the Constitution. The Democrats in their support of "defense of marriage" are being their usual spineless selves in not trying to go against the current here with popular feelings towards gay marriage while Republicans are actively acting out and trying to get things done to strip people of their rights.

The question still stands. Can you morally defend yourself being a member of a party that is activly trying to strip you of your own rights?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2006-06-05 03:47pm

Yogi wrote:I suppose if you try and support Republician candidates that aren't evil in the primaries you could be a Republician and moral. Someone should try that.

So if you were in Jim Crow South you should try and vote for the guys that aren't too rascist and ignore the fact that the overall party structure is actively trying to strip you of your rights? Whether your candidate makes it or not he is still at the mercy of what his party wants. And if they want to strip you of your rights he MAY vote against it but that's really all he can do.

That NOS Guy · Post by **That NOS Guy** » 2006-06-05 03:53pm

Stravo wrote:
Snip on differences

The head of a party saying that is still immensely discomforting. Kerry in '04 declared support for the defense of marriage too. When the head and the most recent POTUS canadiate are saying that, it just doesn't bode well IMHO.

Nevertheless, while you're immensely correct on why the Dems are doing what they do, the fact that they're still going along with it is damning. While I realize support for the so called "defense of marriage" isn't nearly as uniamious in the Dems there's still a more then a few ( previously cited big fish examples included). Being a spineless supporter of vileness is still supporting it anyway you cut it.

Stravo wrote: The question still stands. Can you morally defend yourself being a member of a party that is activly trying to strip you of your own rights?

That's still a no brainer: it's a pretty clear no. Unless of course you're self-loathing.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-06-05 04:22pm

*waits for Duchess of Zeon to post*

I belive some would vote based on the belief that Bush is going on the right path in terms of forign policy, rather then anything specific to themselves.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2006-06-05 04:33pm

Homosexuals need a voice anywhere they can get one, including in the Republican party. Voting exclusively Democrat will help homosexuals just as much as it's helping blacks with their issues.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-06-05 04:35pm

That NOS Guy wrote:IIRC hasn't Dean gone on the record as saying the Dems don't support Gay Marriage either?

He retracted that within a day. Given the outcry among his base, no surprise there.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-06-05 04:37pm

Second class citizenship is no price to pay for promoting party unity and ideology.

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2006-06-05 05:23pm

I'd point out that there are such thing as Republicans who don't support the current administration, a description I think would fit most Log Cabin Republicans. Hell, looking at the latest polls, I'd say that there are a lot of non-homosexual Repulicans who don't support the current administration

.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-06-05 05:32pm

Thirdfain wrote:I'd point out that there are such thing as Republicans who don't support the current administration, a description I think would fit most Log Cabin Republicans. Hell, looking at the latest polls, I'd say that there are a lot of non-homosexual Repulicans who don't support the current administration .

The few Uncle Tom's Cabin Republicans I've encountered are Bush Wankers to the Nth degree; one guy in particular who in any other conversation is amusing and and very likeable, becomes most retarded and delusional when Bush comes up in discussion.
The others there are even worse...nothing to me is so inexplicable as a gay fundie.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-06-05 05:35pm

Thirdfain wrote:I'd point out that there are such thing as Republicans who don't support the current administration, a description I think would fit most Log Cabin Republicans. Hell, looking at the latest polls, I'd say that there are a lot of non-homosexual Repulicans who don't support the current administration .

As simple as it would make things, the Bush Administration is only one bit the Republican party, but virtually all the Republican party is at the minimum anti-gay marriage, either by honest belief (more likely) or fear of breaking ranks. It's practically part of what defines a Republican now.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-06-05 05:40pm

Thirdfain wrote:I'd point out that there are such thing as Republicans who don't support the current administration, a description I think would fit most Log Cabin Republicans. Hell, looking at the latest polls, I'd say that there are a lot of non-homosexual Repulicans who don't support the current administration .

Yeah, but unfortunately, they're waking up to reality a few years too late. Just a bit slow on the uptake, I guess.

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2006-06-05 05:40pm

Gil Hamilton wrote: As simple as it would make things, the Bush Administration is only one bit the Republican party, but virtually all the Republican party is at the minimum anti-gay marriage, either by honest belief (more likely) or fear of breaking ranks. It's practically part of what defines a Republican now.

I get the feeling, at least from the polls, that the views expressed by a certain GW Bush are repudiated by large segements of the party's base right now. I know that there are more than a few economic conservatives in the party, who strongly dislike Bush's nanny state ideals and feel cheated by the administration. Recent poll numbers certainly indicate that his support has been slipping.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2006-06-05 05:41pm

Wasn't there a bunch of gay Republicans that came out to support Bush in 2004? I seem to remember seeing them on the news.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-06-05 05:44pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:Wasn't there a bunch of gay Republicans that came out to support Bush in 2004? I seem to remember seeing them on the news.

IIRC, their line was that they support the president, but wish he would reconsider his views on gay marriage. Idiots, every last one of them. If you support him, you don't give him any reason to change his mind, do you?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-06-05 05:48pm

Thirdfain wrote:I get the feeling, at least from the polls, that the views expressed by a certain GW Bush are repudiated by large segements of the party's base right now. I know that there are more than a few economic conservatives in the party, who strongly dislike Bush's nanny state ideals and feel cheated by the administration. Recent poll numbers certainly indicate that his support has been slipping.

That doesn't address the topic. Dissatification with Bush is not equivlent to supporting gay marriage. They could be livid with Bush and have regular Bush effigies at their barbeques, but that doesn't change that fact that most elected Republicans are anti-gay marriage, at minimum, ranging from "I don't think two guys should marry because I'm scared of my constituancy" to "Fags should burn in hell!". The sheer ubiquity of the position reflects on the people voting Republican.

Crossroads Inc. · Post by **Crossroads Inc.** » 2006-06-05 05:53pm

I would say it depends on the definition of "Republican"

I could easily see a gay person being Republican on the grounds of a Fiscal conservative, small government, strong military style. (indeed I know some here in Arizona)

On another hand, if it was a bible thumping regulating the personal lives of Americans and believing that seperation between church and state was a mistake... Most likely you'd meet either a very closeted gay, or one of those 'ex' gays who has curred themselves.

As of now, with the CURRENT style and leadership of Republicans, I would say that for gays who are out and comftable with being gay, that either you would find practical conservatives who have no love of the modern GOP. Or self deluded apoligists who believe it possible to change the party from the inside...

That NOS Guy · Post by **That NOS Guy** » 2006-06-05 05:54pm

SirNitram wrote: He retracted that within a day. Given the outcry among his base, no surprise there.

There was a formal retraction? Forgive me, I missed it. Thanks for the correction.

I may be posing a question outside of the realm of the thread, but what was the democrats last stated position outside of the whole "seperate but equal" angle? Prancing around on democrats.org I'm digging up nothing but happy fluffy declerations that they support LGBT rights and strive for equality, but nothing actually giving outright approval on gay marriage, or maybe I'm just reading too far into it.

What frightens me is that the Dems in races in the south and flyover states support the ban regardless what national HQ says like in Georgia.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2006-06-05 06:21pm

Can it be said then that gay Republicans who are so because they are fiscally conservative or for strong foreign policy considers these issues more important than their own civil rights and liberties?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-06-05 06:30pm

Stravo wrote:Can it be said then that gay Republicans who are so because they are fiscally conservative or for strong foreign policy considers these issues more important than their own civil rights and liberties?

If they completely bought into all the fearmongering bullshit about how Democrats would destroy the country through fiscal irresponsibility (as if the Republicans wouldn't) and take away the military's guns and force them to fight with nun-chuks, I suppose it's possible for someone to think the damage caused by voting Democrat would be so great as to sacrifice his own personal freedom for the Great Cause. It would require quite a spectacular level of ignorance to actually buy into that, though. So it still boils down to gay Republicans being idiots.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2006-06-05 06:31pm

To me, it's not so much a moral issue as one of basic intelligence. Gays who are in the Republican party because they buy that idiotic "Love the sinner, hate the sin" line are just deluding themselves. The GOP only cares about them to the extent that they vote for gigantic tax cuts for rich people.

It's like the relationship with an abusive spouse. "Oh well he puts food on the table, so I suppose it's okay if he comes home drunk and hits me." Gay Republicans who actually think their party will ever reconsider its stance on gay marriage are being morons. They don't realize that the Christian Right is a far greater proportion of the population than they are, and that proportion almost exclusively votes Republican, unlike the gay population. They not only disregard their own civil liberties, but those of every other gay person in the country.

Post by **Coyote** » 2006-06-05 06:35pm

Crossroads hit it well-- the 'classic' Republican, which was conservative on fiscal policy and either liberal or uninterested in tangling with social issues, can be a supporter of the Republican Party in spirit... I mean, in theory, any member of a minority group that has bore the brunt of official government persecution would probably like the idea of small government with limited power.

Unfortunately, that T. Roosevelt/Eisenhower-esque side of the Republican Party is rapidly fading from sight in the rear-view mirror of the party as the Christian Taliban siezes increasing influence. They want government power to push that social agenda, and by Jeezuz, if you don't go along you're outta luck.

Anyone who is in the Republican Party that does not want to live in Jeezuzstan had better jump ship and quit making accomodations that keep them in power.