Slog Comments
Log Cabin Republicans Endorse Romney—Can I Get Away With Calling Them House Maggots?
3
That makes Gay Dude for Romney a maggot as well. Some day he'll come out of his pupae phase and become a fly. Fly away, little GDfR! All the way back to Stockholm!
4
So, Romney says gay marriage is a "States Issue" and the log cabin republicans endorse him, saying "We're Americans first."
Does anyone else see the contradiction there?
Does anyone else see the contradiction there?
5
The obvious rejoinder would be that the unfortunate incident involving Ms Langbehn and Ms Pond occurred during the Obama administration. The reality is that the president doesn't have much power over such things. Still, it is hard to see how any gay person could support a candidate who employs Pat Buchanan's sister as a senior adviser.
7
Dan Savage needlessly restrained himself from not bringing up Romney's forcible haircuts to suspected gay classmates.
8
Can you get away with calling them 'house maggots'? As usual, you'll be taken to task by the usual suspects (the house maggots, the right, the 'phobes) over your strong language. They're just oversensitive (most bigots are). But really, 'maggot' is nice, and colorful, and has a couple of hard consonants that make it fun to say in derision: "Maggot!"
I like.
I like.
9
The celebration of diversity does not allow diversity of political thought, no matter the diversity of our sexual identity and expression. Always has, always will.
10
@5: Actually, that incident occurred in February 2007.
From the article:
"As recounted by Ms. Langbehn, the details of the Miami episode are harrowing. It began in February 2007, when the family — including three children, then ages 9, 11 and 13 — traveled there for a cruise."
From the article:
"As recounted by Ms. Langbehn, the details of the Miami episode are harrowing. It began in February 2007, when the family — including three children, then ages 9, 11 and 13 — traveled there for a cruise."
11
@9 Diversity of political thought is fine, but supporting a political party that hates you is pretty fucking stupid.
13
@9 the celebration of diversity welcomes the diversity of political thought but it does not allow for self hatred , self deception, liars, thieves, swindlers and murderers.never has, NEVER will.
14
@9: Opression is not "diversity of political thought". They don't like you, they don't want you, and they don't think you are an American citizen deserving full civil liberties and rights. You can kiss their asses from now until kingdom come and all you will ever get is a face full of farts.
15
@9 When you can't tell the difference between diversity and stupidity, then diversity doesn't have any value.
16
@10 & 12 OK, I was wrong about that, but my general point still stands, the president doesn't have much power over such things.
17
Real maggots have some integrity, some purpose, even some uses to people.
Can't say the same about the Log Cabin Republicans.
Can't say the same about the Log Cabin Republicans.
18
Hatred. Wow.
I tell you what hatred is. Hatred is four years of an anemic economy, hatred is 5 trillion added to our national debut, hatred having a president playing politics with national security, hatred is a president who refuses to acknowledge the threat of radical jihad, hatred is a president who picks and chooses who gets the benefit of his crony capitalism, hatred is compelling religious institutions to provide contraception when it violates their religious principles, hatred is a president who barely tolerates capitalism, above all HATRED IS A PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T LOVE AMERICA.
I don't need warm and fuzzies from a president. I just want a president that's qualified to do the job. Mitt Romney is that man.
I tell you what hatred is. Hatred is four years of an anemic economy, hatred is 5 trillion added to our national debut, hatred having a president playing politics with national security, hatred is a president who refuses to acknowledge the threat of radical jihad, hatred is a president who picks and chooses who gets the benefit of his crony capitalism, hatred is compelling religious institutions to provide contraception when it violates their religious principles, hatred is a president who barely tolerates capitalism, above all HATRED IS A PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T LOVE AMERICA.
I don't need warm and fuzzies from a president. I just want a president that's qualified to do the job. Mitt Romney is that man.
19
Fortunately, a Federal Marriage Amendment is never actually going to happen. The hurdles to changing the Constitution are (thankfully for the most part) almost impossibly high. It is unimaginable to me that any issue in which the country is divided nigh in half could even come close.
But of course, the consequences of such a thing that Dan points out are absolutely correct...it would be an incredibly cruel shift in family law.
And that's why when someone who supports this kind of policy tells me that they don't have a problem with gay people, I tell them to their face that I do not believe them.
But of course, the consequences of such a thing that Dan points out are absolutely correct...it would be an incredibly cruel shift in family law.
And that's why when someone who supports this kind of policy tells me that they don't have a problem with gay people, I tell them to their face that I do not believe them.
20
@16, actually the president does. Obama has made it mandatory for all hospitals receiving federal funds (as Dan pointed out, that is ALL hospitals) to allow hospital visitation to same sex couples. That means that what happened to those two women in 2007 is now illegal.
Romney wants to reverse that and allow such things to happen again.
Log Cabin Republicans are a bunch of fucking morons. I was starting to have some respect for them after the part they played in the repeal of DADT, but now any credibility they have earned is out the window.
Termites indeed. Eating away their own rights and future because they think it will profit their pocketbooks.
Romney wants to reverse that and allow such things to happen again.
Log Cabin Republicans are a bunch of fucking morons. I was starting to have some respect for them after the part they played in the repeal of DADT, but now any credibility they have earned is out the window.
Termites indeed. Eating away their own rights and future because they think it will profit their pocketbooks.
21
@6 Believe it or not, I am slightly surprised by this. LCR have been gay advocates for quite some time and in 2004 I believe they refused to endorse Bush. GOProud are a bunch of little closet fags who put their party above their own human rights, but LCR have actually showed a smidgen of integrity on occasion.
Choosing not to endorse Romney would've at least given them some credence of respectability, even if they didn't go as far as endorsing Obama.
It just goes to show priorities and personally, I find it mind boggling that Civil Rights Issues fall behind Economic ones in some people's minds.
"You can treat me as a second class citizen as long as I end up making more money and pay fewer taxes."
Choosing not to endorse Romney would've at least given them some credence of respectability, even if they didn't go as far as endorsing Obama.
It just goes to show priorities and personally, I find it mind boggling that Civil Rights Issues fall behind Economic ones in some people's minds.
"You can treat me as a second class citizen as long as I end up making more money and pay fewer taxes."
22
It's interesting what bed rock American values some people will compromise or dismiss and then say, "we are Americans first." Civil Equality is a bed rock American value, yet the LCR are willing to dispense with that in the interests of what, keeping gas prices low, reducing taxes for the rich, bombing Iran.
How pleased will they be with Romney when he attempts legislation that denies Gay citizens the few civil rights they now enjoy.
How pleased will they be with Romney when he attempts legislation that denies Gay citizens the few civil rights they now enjoy.
23
@20 Stop clouding the issue w/ fact.
@5 Who was in the White House back in 2007? Like all loyal Republicans I've forgotten the man's name, but he enacted Medicare Part D and favored amnesty for illegal aliens so he couldn't have been one of our people.
@5 Who was in the White House back in 2007? Like all loyal Republicans I've forgotten the man's name, but he enacted Medicare Part D and favored amnesty for illegal aliens so he couldn't have been one of our people.
24
@18 "Mitt Romney is that man"
Which Mitt Romney? Conservative Mitt? Moderate Mitt? Liberal Mitt? Which Mitt is the man to fix the economy.
Moreover, GDfR, please refer to the last sentence of my comment @21. Romney will ROLL BACK your civil rights. I suppose if you're willing to be degraded in hopes that Romney's economic plan (as flawed as everyone with half a brain finds it) you go ahead and be his little whore, I hope he gives you a big damn tip.
Which Mitt Romney? Conservative Mitt? Moderate Mitt? Liberal Mitt? Which Mitt is the man to fix the economy.
Moreover, GDfR, please refer to the last sentence of my comment @21. Romney will ROLL BACK your civil rights. I suppose if you're willing to be degraded in hopes that Romney's economic plan (as flawed as everyone with half a brain finds it) you go ahead and be his little whore, I hope he gives you a big damn tip.
25
@18 - Maggots are blind in their pupal state, so we'll give you a break on this one. You sir, are a maggot on the gay community.
26
@ 18, that is so far wrong that I don't even know what else to say.
Whether you're the genuine article (an honest to goodness gay man who supports Mitt Romney) or not (a shill in the employ of the Mitt Romney campaign, the GOP, or an allied 527), that is the biggest statement of falsehood I've ever seen on Slog.
Don't bother asking for a rebuttal. There's no point in giving you one.
Whether you're the genuine article (an honest to goodness gay man who supports Mitt Romney) or not (a shill in the employ of the Mitt Romney campaign, the GOP, or an allied 527), that is the biggest statement of falsehood I've ever seen on Slog.
Don't bother asking for a rebuttal. There's no point in giving you one.
27
@24: The president has no power to roll back anyone's rights.
Let's suppose the president hated all redheads. He couldn't even propose a constitutional amendment. He couldn't even veto a constitutional amendment. Presidents proposes, Congress disposes.
Yes, he can appoint justices to the SCOTUS, but they must pass Senate confirmation. Those that do pass, have to be well versed in our constitution which affords us our liberty.
Let's suppose the president hated all redheads. He couldn't even propose a constitutional amendment. He couldn't even veto a constitutional amendment. Presidents proposes, Congress disposes.
Yes, he can appoint justices to the SCOTUS, but they must pass Senate confirmation. Those that do pass, have to be well versed in our constitution which affords us our liberty.
28
"We are Americans first."
That's the problem right there and it's hardly restricted to the gay rights spectrum. We're freaking human beings first and the myopic viewpoints of Republicans just doesn't recognize that fact. How or why is it hard? Idiots.
I remember when I was 10 or 12 years old returning from a camping trip and ditching a cooler with some food remnants next to our house & forgetting about it. When I went to retrieve it a few weeks later I found it absolutely covered in maggots and a (literally!) gag inducing, repugnant odor. They're really revolting & wonderfully abhorrent specimens. I approve of the term.
That's the problem right there and it's hardly restricted to the gay rights spectrum. We're freaking human beings first and the myopic viewpoints of Republicans just doesn't recognize that fact. How or why is it hard? Idiots.
I remember when I was 10 or 12 years old returning from a camping trip and ditching a cooler with some food remnants next to our house & forgetting about it. When I went to retrieve it a few weeks later I found it absolutely covered in maggots and a (literally!) gag inducing, repugnant odor. They're really revolting & wonderfully abhorrent specimens. I approve of the term.
29
#18 makes great points. Of course Obama HATES America, he was born in Kenya. He's a socialist, we all know that he studied in Moscow at the Institute of Marxist Thought. And of course Obama plays the "crony capitalism" game, look at the billions he gave Wall Street banks (Bush did that? Oh never mind). Bain Capital on the other hand is the model of social compassion, all those poor Chinese people being show the LOVE of Romney getting those jobs taken from Americans. Now THAT'S Love, Romney style.
30
Gay Dude For Romney sounds like he's heading for a psychological break. Pretty erratic stuff there. "A PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T LOVE AMERICA" is wacko territory for sure. I hope he's being kept well away from firearms.
The real Log Cabin Republican point of view is "we don't need legal rights, because we are rich and white, and if you're rich and white in America, you already have everything you could need". Dick Cheney's daughter isn't ever going to be kept from any hospital bedsides, and probably neither is GDFR. The Republican motto is "I've got mine, Jack, so fuck you", after all.
The real Log Cabin Republican point of view is "we don't need legal rights, because we are rich and white, and if you're rich and white in America, you already have everything you could need". Dick Cheney's daughter isn't ever going to be kept from any hospital bedsides, and probably neither is GDFR. The Republican motto is "I've got mine, Jack, so fuck you", after all.
31
@ 27, "those that do pass have to be well versed in our constitution which affords us our liberty."
Tell that to Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Two people on the current court who prove you wrong. Especially Thomas.
Tell that to Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Two people on the current court who prove you wrong. Especially Thomas.
32
Just to play devil's advocate, I know I wasn't the only one holding my nose a little when I voted for Obama due to his stated view of marriage being between one man and one woman. The Log Cabin Republicans are making the same bet that I did, that their canidate's stated views to win votes are not the views he actually holds. That being said, if Mitt Romney wins (god forbid) he will have to deliver on some promises he made to a super conservative base to get re-elected, and what if the promise he delivers on is to stomp on the civil rights of gay people? Not worth the risk, even if you do like the 20% tax cut Romney keeps crowing about.
33
@2: Exactly what I thought. Only, a la Romney, I would have thought of it sooner and better than you did.
@10, 12: Don't matter, Republicans would still blame it on Obama.
@27: A Constitutional amendment oppressing redheads would never make it through, because hating on people for their pigmentation hasn't been cool in this country for fifty years. Nearly half the country (and shrinking yearly, praise the Lord) still thinks it's perfectly acceptable to make people second-class-citizens because of who they love.
@10, 12: Don't matter, Republicans would still blame it on Obama.
@27: A Constitutional amendment oppressing redheads would never make it through, because hating on people for their pigmentation hasn't been cool in this country for fifty years. Nearly half the country (and shrinking yearly, praise the Lord) still thinks it's perfectly acceptable to make people second-class-citizens because of who they love.
34
"We are Americans first."
---------------
That argument might have some validity if the choice really were between one side who were great on social issues, but incompetent whackjobs when it came to other issues - external affairs, economy, environment, etc, and another with a less than stellar social issues record, but who had sound, proven, sensible and workable policies on other important issues.
---------------
That argument might have some validity if the choice really were between one side who were great on social issues, but incompetent whackjobs when it came to other issues - external affairs, economy, environment, etc, and another with a less than stellar social issues record, but who had sound, proven, sensible and workable policies on other important issues.
35
@30: Oh Knarf, if only you had your wish and just rich whites voted for Romney, Alabama would be a solid blue state as would Wyoming.
And we have never heard this president profess his love for America, only that he wanted to totally transform it. I hope you share in his hopes for his transformative vision, only nobody knows where that will lead us. I hope you enjoy skipping down that path Knarf, should Woodrow win a second term.
And we have never heard this president profess his love for America, only that he wanted to totally transform it. I hope you share in his hopes for his transformative vision, only nobody knows where that will lead us. I hope you enjoy skipping down that path Knarf, should Woodrow win a second term.
37
@35 what Alabama have you been to? There's plenty of poor people and racial mixing there.
As for President Obama proclaiming his love for America...I don't think it ever occurs to him because his actions speak far more loudly than his words.
He loves America enough to suffer masses of hate and bile spewed at him as he tries to keep her a premier nation in the world.
He loves America enough to risk assassination while he hops all over the world trying to broker world peace.
He loves America enough to give up an extremely lucrative law practice to take a pay cut to take on the white collar job that has possibly the lowest job satisfaction in the world.
He loves America enough that his beloved family has had to take second place (and if you dare say his daughters aren't negatively affected by this, we'll all know you're criminally insane) to crazy hours and all sorts of traveling.
And he even loves America enough to protect the rights of maggots like you, who revile him and say that his term has hurt America. I'd say that's an awful lot of love.
As for President Obama proclaiming his love for America...I don't think it ever occurs to him because his actions speak far more loudly than his words.
He loves America enough to suffer masses of hate and bile spewed at him as he tries to keep her a premier nation in the world.
He loves America enough to risk assassination while he hops all over the world trying to broker world peace.
He loves America enough to give up an extremely lucrative law practice to take a pay cut to take on the white collar job that has possibly the lowest job satisfaction in the world.
He loves America enough that his beloved family has had to take second place (and if you dare say his daughters aren't negatively affected by this, we'll all know you're criminally insane) to crazy hours and all sorts of traveling.
And he even loves America enough to protect the rights of maggots like you, who revile him and say that his term has hurt America. I'd say that's an awful lot of love.
38
@35, I didn't say only rich whites support Romney, obviously; I said that the only gays who support Romney are rich and white, because they, by virtue of being rich and white, are immune from the legal and economic penalties of being gay. As for Alabama, it's mostly fear of Negroes, and a powerful desire to formulate a state government based entirely on a fear of Negroes, that motivates them. That and the massive subsidies that the blue states send their way, of course. Nobody sucks up federal welfare money like Republicans.
39
@27 "@24: The president has no power to roll back anyone's rights."
As a civics class truism, you're absolutely correct.
However, as Anarchists and Libertarians often hand-wave past: Having Rights is not the same as securing or enjoying your rights.
There is a patch work of Constitutional dictates, Laws and Policies that are to protect you from infringement of those rights.
Many of the recent protections for those classes of people described by Sexual Orientation, Gender Expression and the like, are only policies and Mitt Romney can and almost assuredly would roll those fuckers back with a quickness.
As a civics class truism, you're absolutely correct.
However, as Anarchists and Libertarians often hand-wave past: Having Rights is not the same as securing or enjoying your rights.
There is a patch work of Constitutional dictates, Laws and Policies that are to protect you from infringement of those rights.
Many of the recent protections for those classes of people described by Sexual Orientation, Gender Expression and the like, are only policies and Mitt Romney can and almost assuredly would roll those fuckers back with a quickness.
40
@18, The President hates America and capitalism *so much* he's driving the whole damn thing into the ditch on purpose! Good grief. For some reason I never thought you were one of THOSE Republicans. Do you really believe these things you say or are you just burnt out and grasping for the nearest AM radio talking points?
There is nothing remotely reasonable about anything you just said. Moreover, there is nothing remotely relevant about it. This isn't about Obama; it's about Romney, the Republican Party, and their regressive stance on equality. As a gay Republican you have here both the opportunity and the audience to defend your case, and instead you choose to divert to a bunch of unrelated, half-baked cheap-shots against the president. You are among the very few who are qualified to handle this issue and you can't do it.
There is nothing remotely reasonable about anything you just said. Moreover, there is nothing remotely relevant about it. This isn't about Obama; it's about Romney, the Republican Party, and their regressive stance on equality. As a gay Republican you have here both the opportunity and the audience to defend your case, and instead you choose to divert to a bunch of unrelated, half-baked cheap-shots against the president. You are among the very few who are qualified to handle this issue and you can't do it.
41
@37 I couldn't agree more, although "He loves America enough to risk assassination while he hops all over the world trying to broker world peace." is worth unpacking, as I'd argue that Obama is at least a full order of magnitude more likely to suffer an assassination attempt from an American group or individual.
42
Oh, @35 - if I were in Alabama I'd say "Bless your heart ...". As for your statement that "his transformative vision, only nobody knows where that will lead us" -- please put the Fox News crack pipe down. He's been President for FOUR FUCKING YEARS. Believing that things will suddenly, drastically change on November 7th is almost as blatantly stupid as endorsing someone who doesn't think you deserve the same rights as my hetero partner & I.
Almost.
Almost.
43
In the current era, there's only one truly rational reason to support the Republican: because you think he will make you more money. Maybe you're already very wealthy, and this supposition is callous, but correct. Or maybe you're not wealthy, but Republicans are historically better for your chosen field (military contracts, etc.). Or maybe you're incorrect, but still rational, such as the many people who seem to think that Republicans are generically better for the economy, or small business.
Every other reason to support the Republican is some form of psychodrama. Tribalism, self-hatred, existential anxiety, religious brainwashing, whatever. Powerful driving forces, but not rational. So, you poke them, and a bunch of emo blathering comes out.
That's the only explanation I can come up with for @18. "HATRED IS A PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T LOVE AMERICA" followed immediately by "I don't need warm and fuzzies from a president," and complaints about a president practicing "crony capitalism" followed immediately by complaints about a president who "barely tolerates capitalism."
Although I can see why a gay dude might think it's "hatred" to expect the health insurance offered by religious employers to provide birth control.
Every other reason to support the Republican is some form of psychodrama. Tribalism, self-hatred, existential anxiety, religious brainwashing, whatever. Powerful driving forces, but not rational. So, you poke them, and a bunch of emo blathering comes out.
That's the only explanation I can come up with for @18. "HATRED IS A PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T LOVE AMERICA" followed immediately by "I don't need warm and fuzzies from a president," and complaints about a president practicing "crony capitalism" followed immediately by complaints about a president who "barely tolerates capitalism."
Although I can see why a gay dude might think it's "hatred" to expect the health insurance offered by religious employers to provide birth control.
44
Theoretically, I suppose, it's good for minority groups to have a presence in the "big tent" party, and if you're not for their nominee, well, then you can't consider yourself a member. Again, theoretically, I suppose.
45
@40: Actually, I've been doing splendidly in presenting my case. I should note however, that when an editor of "Seattle's only Newspaper" refers to a section of his readership as maggots, gay to boot, well then I'm at liberty to embellish my responses with heaping anger, transformed into provocative yet eloquent rhetoric.
46
yawn . . I stopped reading back in #18 at "Hatred is a President who doesn't love America" . . . should have stopped a few lines earlier with the "Hatred is a $5 trillion national debut (sic)." Righties don't wanna engage, don't want to be responsive. If you disagree, you are wrong, deluded, evail, bamboozled by a smooth-talkin' president (unlike Reagan: his speech skills were just fine), or you hate America. And that's been the dominant right-wing message about disagreement for a long time. I reserve the right to hate oppression, and people who knowingly, actively support it. Because that's the opposite of not just diversity, but of liberty, the "loss" of which those tea party folks are always lamenting.
47
@45: "I'm winning this argument because reasons."
And since when are Log Cabin Republicans part of the SLOG readership?
And since when are Log Cabin Republicans part of the SLOG readership?
48
@27 Did you even read this post?
Pretty sure that would be someone that would attempt to roll back your rights. Whether it would pass, why would you even fucking take that bet?
yesterday the Romney campaign not only reiterated its support for amending the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, which would result in the forcible divorce of tens of thousands of legally-married same-sex couples in seven states and the District of Columbia, the Romney camp also described a gay man's ability to be at his husband's bedside during a medical emergency as a "benefit"—a little treat, a special favor—and not a right.
Pretty sure that would be someone that would attempt to roll back your rights. Whether it would pass, why would you even fucking take that bet?
49
GDfR, you want to talk about hatred?
Hatred is calling a president who is doing everything he knows how to make our country safer and stronger literally unAmerican.
Hatred is playing politics with people's lives; teaching parents to reject and shun their children, because the child's suicide is better than their existence as "a gay".
Hatred is realizing that the American people disagree with your economic policies, and changing your focus to stopping women from getting health care, stopping gays from getting human rights, and protecting bigots who hate both groups.
Hatred is programming citizens to be unable to think on a rational level, and to instead respond to your dog whistles by disengaging from discussion.
Hatred is confusing disagreement with you economic theories with hatred.
Failing to close a $1t deficit in the face of obstructionism? That's not hatred. Neither is presiding over a week economy that you tried to restart. Accusing one guy of crony capitalism while ignoring the fact that that's everyone in power, including your guy? Not hatred, but suggestive.
Finally, hatred is voting for someone who doesn't think you're human, regardless of your reason. That's self-hatred, and I hope you realize this soon.
Hatred is calling a president who is doing everything he knows how to make our country safer and stronger literally unAmerican.
Hatred is playing politics with people's lives; teaching parents to reject and shun their children, because the child's suicide is better than their existence as "a gay".
Hatred is realizing that the American people disagree with your economic policies, and changing your focus to stopping women from getting health care, stopping gays from getting human rights, and protecting bigots who hate both groups.
Hatred is programming citizens to be unable to think on a rational level, and to instead respond to your dog whistles by disengaging from discussion.
Hatred is confusing disagreement with you economic theories with hatred.
Failing to close a $1t deficit in the face of obstructionism? That's not hatred. Neither is presiding over a week economy that you tried to restart. Accusing one guy of crony capitalism while ignoring the fact that that's everyone in power, including your guy? Not hatred, but suggestive.
Finally, hatred is voting for someone who doesn't think you're human, regardless of your reason. That's self-hatred, and I hope you realize this soon.
51
What percentage of gays vote Republican anyways? I assume among White gays that number is pretty high. If Republicans were smart, they'd drop the social bs and focus on fiscal conservatism. All that Bible thumping stuff is old.
52
One argument for allowing "gay Marriage" in NY was the revenue it would generate. I ask myself, "why lesbians/gay men would take their children to an anti gay state? " I myself will not go to a hostile country such as Arabia, nor would I go to a hostile state, such as Florida. And I certainly would not spend my vacation dollars where bigots could get them.
57
Mr Libertarian @19 - Impossibly high? Hardly. One just has to be willing to spend the requisite political capital, and until now there was insufficient reason for the Republicans to cook their biggest cash cow. Half the Democrats in Congress would sell us out for far less than sufficient pork to give them Tenure For Life with their constituents. And this is just the sort of thing likely to appeal to Mr Romney. Get the FMA through Congress via a series of secret deals and he's a bigger right-wing hero than Mr Reagan. The states won't be a problem, even if Puerto Rico joins the union and bumps the 3/4 number from 38 to 39.
58
Here's what I don't get. Why be a gay Republican when Libertarians are a group that exists. They have similar economical views to the repubs, but they have a pretty strong history of supporting gay rights. Gary Johnson was "out" for supporting gay marriage before Obama even. I'd be voting Libertarian myself if the race wasn't so close (no way I want that turd Ryan anywhere near the White House). LCR and GOProud have no excuse other than the most vauge hopes of "changing things from the inside." There really is no way that the GOP will risk loosing it's support of social conservatives (at least not for another decade). So gay repub's will just remain a tool of their's to claim they aren't raving bigots. "See? I don't hate fags. Look at my gay friend over there in the corner."
60
@Gay Dude for Romney:
You seem to be arguing that The Stranger should be rejected for its hateful attitude to you.
Yet you don't seem to think that the Republican Party should be rejected for its hateful attitude to you.
The Republican Party's attitude to you seems to be the more extreme one.
You seem to be arguing that The Stranger should be rejected for its hateful attitude to you.
Yet you don't seem to think that the Republican Party should be rejected for its hateful attitude to you.
The Republican Party's attitude to you seems to be the more extreme one.
Comments (60) RSS