Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Log Cabin Republicans

Posted by on Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:44 PM

They're not as noxious as the kapos at GOProud, but... they're spineless apologists who are out there raising money for the sworn/orange enemies of LGBT equality.

 

Comments (41) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Good for Joe - so many politically active gays are the middle-aged mortgaged white guys with a little money saved up - gotta keep reminding 'em to fight their own bourgeois drift to conservatism. Log Cabins are a stern reminder of how ridiculous it looks to lose that battle.
Posted by gloomy gus on March 24, 2012 at 12:56 PM · Report this
2
@1: I'm a middle-aged white gay guy who's been a proud life-long Democrat and I have no intention whatsoever of drifting rightward to the Repugs. They are and always have been bad for America ever since I've been voting.
Posted by tniel on March 24, 2012 at 1:08 PM · Report this
Phoebe in Wallingford 3
Ultimately of course, sexual orientation should be tangential to one's political philosophy and involvement.
Posted by Phoebe in Wallingford on March 24, 2012 at 1:15 PM · Report this
4
@3, As long as one party campaigns on treating you like a second-class citizen, how is that even possible?
Posted by Fairness Doctrine on March 24, 2012 at 1:18 PM · Report this
5
@2 I am too, but I haven't fingers and toes enough to count the number of similarly situated friends who've done the rightward drift. You'll be fine, I'll be fine, but the point is the many not as immune to the temptation as we.
Posted by gloomy gus on March 24, 2012 at 1:22 PM · Report this
Xenos 6
I'm tempted to Godwin but I'll just say I cannot fathom the spineless souls that must occupy the ranks of the LCR. Has anyone here ever met/had a conversion with them? How do they square that circle?
Posted by Xenos on March 24, 2012 at 1:28 PM · Report this
Phoebe in Wallingford 7
@4, reread my first clause.
Posted by Phoebe in Wallingford on March 24, 2012 at 1:28 PM · Report this
8
@7
Yes, "orientation" should be tangential.

But once you try to actualize that orientation by having sex with a consenting adult(s) not approved by the Right-wing (see attached chart A1)
or by using a non-approved orifice(s) (see attached chart A2)
or using non-approved methods of birth control (see attached chart A3)
then the Republican political party has a problem.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on March 24, 2012 at 1:37 PM · Report this
9
Godwin's Law in seven words.
Posted by David Wright on March 24, 2012 at 1:45 PM · Report this
10
@7: Yeah, but so what? The Republican party exists to be SOCIAL conservatives. Sexual identity IS their philosophy and your bedroom their involvement, certainly including Ron Paul and the rest of these hucksters.

Anyway, why isn't Andrew Sullivan included with these assholes? He's just as much a fraud as the rest of the Log Cabiners.
Posted by no exceptions that I can see on March 24, 2012 at 1:53 PM · Report this
Xenos 11
@8 Brilliantly stated.

It's not so much about identity for identity's sake so much as it's about control, pure and simple.
Posted by Xenos on March 24, 2012 at 2:01 PM · Report this
puppydogtails 12
Why isn't LCR fundraising for gay-friendly candidates? They must realize that they are being used as cover by Boehner and others ... the "gay friends" defense.
Posted by puppydogtails on March 24, 2012 at 3:07 PM · Report this
reverend dr dj riz 13
@12..but the repugs never name names of any gay sort, not even the log cabin ones.
or
'who is more fool, the fool or the fool that follows the fool ?'
Posted by reverend dr dj riz on March 24, 2012 at 4:19 PM · Report this
Kevin_BGFH 14
Though I am a white, middle class gay male with a mortgage, I feel confident that I would be a Democrat even if I was straight. (My straight twin brother lives in a very red state where he is a lonely Democrat.)

I am strongly pro-choice in many contexts, whether it's abortion and insured-covered contraception (even though I'll never get pregnant), medical marijuana (even though I get sick on it), or other issues. I'm proud of my family's Labor roots even though I've always worked in management. I was a vocal feminist at the age of 12 in a very conservative town. I believe in evolution, mankind's affect on climate change, and sex education. I'm confident these things would be true of me -- as they are of most of my straight male friends -- even if I was straight.
Posted by Kevin_BGFH http://biggayfrathouse.typepad.com/blog/ on March 24, 2012 at 5:00 PM · Report this
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 15

Are there Mrs. Butterworth Republicans?
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com on March 24, 2012 at 5:07 PM · Report this
sirkowski 16
@6 Drugs.
Posted by sirkowski http://www.missdynamite.com on March 24, 2012 at 5:51 PM · Report this
reverend dr dj riz 17
@15.. that'd be herman cain..
..unless there's some aunt jemima group
Posted by reverend dr dj riz on March 24, 2012 at 6:30 PM · Report this
18
"I base the future of the country on some people's irrational fear/hatred of me." Or maybe, "There are Republicans who don't like gays, so Republican ideas must be bunk."
Posted by Lousyd on March 24, 2012 at 8:38 PM · Report this
19
one could find it equally ridiculous that there are any women who vote Republican
Posted by olive oyl on March 24, 2012 at 8:40 PM · Report this
20
"I base the future of the country on some people's irrational fear/hatred of me." Or maybe, "There are Republicans who don't like gays, so Republican ideas must be bunk."
Posted by Lousyd on March 24, 2012 at 9:12 PM · Report this
21
I propose a thought experiment for all left-leaning members of the LGBTQ community. Suppose the party of smaller government was also the party that stood for gay rights and women's reproductive rights. You know, government out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms and that sort of thing. Now suppose the other party was controlled by bible thumpers who were against gay marriage but who favored things like socialized medicine because they saw caring for the sick and poor as a christian duty. Which party would you vote for? The libertarians or the bible thumping socialists?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on March 24, 2012 at 9:52 PM · Report this
22
There's a Rothbard quote, discussing his history of political involvement, where he rattles off a whole list of groups he has championed, including, among others, black nationalists(!), but he finishes the quote with a statement that he has always been "true to his beliefs." I always like to think of it in conjunction with his bitter statement upon being muscled out of Cato that one couldn't trust a libertarian not to poison one's coffee--the hurt and astonishment is so...delicious!

You do realize that entrism, as envisioned by Fred Meyer, is viewed broadly as treachery, right? This isn't just a party thing. When, for example, a libertarian says that blacks are fated to poverty as an argument against welfare, using their non-violent drug arrests as evidence of their criminality, he can hardly expect the blacks to have forgotten it when, using those same statistics, he argues that marijuana should be legalized as the enforcement is "racist" and disproportionately affects blacks. Hilarious! And I'm sure once you get your legal drugs you'll lay down the clout and money to liberate those blacks wrongfully imprisoned on the previous charges, especially when up against the unionized prison guards and their bought legislators and judges. Sure thing, buddy!

To tie this together into a point, it seems that both you and Goldwater were surprised when the people whom you assisted into the Republican Party on the basis of their religious belief that God made blacks inferior turned out to also believe that gays should be executed. Really? Really. I mean Rothbard was *honestly* surprised when Pat "segregation, segregation, segregation" Buchanan turned out to be a protectionist! Shocking!

People don't trust libertarians because they are mercenaries and backstabbers; in addition to this, they have no idea how to read people--I blame autism. I suppose what really frustrates me is when some dirty turncoat like you, or Sully, or Brock, or "Deep Throat," or Frum comes down the pike how people are deceived into finding you fuckers potentially useful--they wasted so much time sharpening knives!

More...
Posted by Not Again... on March 25, 2012 at 2:09 AM · Report this
23
@21, that is.
Posted by Not Again... on March 25, 2012 at 2:10 AM · Report this
24
TLDR version @21--

Ken Mehlman: The only difference between Roy Cohn and you is AIDS.
Posted by Not Again... on March 25, 2012 at 2:22 AM · Report this
TheMisanthrope 25
@21 The party of smaller government? Are you talking Republicans? Surely, you troll.
Posted by TheMisanthrope on March 25, 2012 at 2:24 AM · Report this
26
@25 Let me re-phrase that. If the pro-big money party were also the pro-marriage equality party who would you vote for? Suppose the alternative was a guy who held Rick Santorum's views on social issues, but who was pro-union and pro-universal healthcare?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on March 25, 2012 at 4:31 AM · Report this
Canadian Nurse 27
@26: Isn't that why liberals get involved in politics beyond just at the November ballot box? So there's never a choice like that to make?
Posted by Canadian Nurse on March 25, 2012 at 7:49 AM · Report this
GymGoth 28
Thank you #21/26 (whether you are the real Ken Mehlman or not). You hit the nail on the head. The gay left is more "left" than gay. I belonged to LCR in Boston 10 years ago and we supported Weld, Cellucci, and Romney because of their positions on the economy and government. The fact they were "gay friendly" was important but not to the expense of everything else.

Similarly in presidential politics, if your vote for president is defined entirely how you perceive what they think of you personally, then you are abdicating your citizenship. It is interesting that Clinton signed DOMA and Obama supports civil unions not marriage (yet has not even attempted making the federal government treat civil unions as marriage when it comes to tax law). Yet somehow Republicans candidates are the boogeymen.

The gay left (like HRC) cares more about abortion rights, socialized medicine, secularism, and meaningless things like hate crimes laws, than anything else. That is why there are no takers here to your proposition.
Posted by GymGoth on March 25, 2012 at 9:45 AM · Report this
29
re @21 - might be interested in this test (there are other versions of this out there, this is just the one that came up first and I'm lazy) http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Posted by agony on March 25, 2012 at 11:46 AM · Report this
30
Of course the only presidential candidate who actually supports gay marriage is two term New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, who is the likely nominee of the Libertarian Party.
Posted by BruceZMajors on March 25, 2012 at 1:14 PM · Report this
31
@21: And you assholes vote for Ron Paul, and are intellectually bankrupt.
Posted by you insincere fuckwits coddle social conservatives on March 25, 2012 at 9:12 PM · Report this
32
@22: hallelujah. i'm social libertarian-leaning, however I know too much about "libertarian policy" and those politicians to ever vote for one again
Posted by the two parties aren't the only terrible ones on March 25, 2012 at 9:15 PM · Report this
33
@21/26, I believe that people who do not believe in equality for gay people are not intellectually honest and are too religion-focused to truly represent my interests. However, I also believe small-government obsessives have an unbelievably simplistic and selfish worldview. I would either support a third party or pick and choose among the available candidates of both parties depending on which parts of their respective parties' platforms they emphasized. I have my quibbles with the Democratic party (gun regulation is one of them), and I'm a registered Independent. But I generally agree with its goals, fortunately.
Posted by JrzWrld on March 26, 2012 at 7:53 AM · Report this
34
BTW People I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. I'm a former Republican moderate who turned into a Democratic moderate when the Republicans all moved to crazy town.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on March 26, 2012 at 8:40 AM · Report this
undead ayn rand 35
@34: The answer to that is "ha ha ha that's a conflict I'd love to be able to concern myself with".

I don't see the GOP giving up the culture wars anytime in the next twenty years.
Posted by undead ayn rand on March 26, 2012 at 8:56 AM · Report this
Tetchy Brit 36
Living in the UK I'm in the enviable position of all 3 major parties being pro-equality (hell, the only anti-gay party left is the British Nazi, oops I mean National, Party). Unfortunately they're all such colossal fuck ups on all other counts I can't bring myself to vote for any of them.
Posted by Tetchy Brit on March 26, 2012 at 11:00 AM · Report this
geoz 37
Equality seems so easy to believe in.
Posted by geoz on March 26, 2012 at 1:11 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 38
@37: Gays ARE equal humanrights-wise to straights, If you have any difficulty understanding this concept, that's your stupidity shoehorning its way in.
Posted by undead ayn rand on March 26, 2012 at 1:50 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 39
I mean, I don't think you're arguing here, but the concept is quite simple at its core.
Posted by undead ayn rand on March 26, 2012 at 1:54 PM · Report this
Ophian 40
@21

As @ 35 said, that would be a nice problem to have: Gosh, both parties have platforms that--while not without their flaws--have some very strong selling points.

But seriously, not in this country. As you said yourself, you have had to pick the lesser of two evils. Give me an Eisenhower conservative not given to bigotry and christo-crazy culture-war policies and I am there. But you'll have to wait a very long time to see not-crazy-conservatism or liberalism-with-a-spine in this country.

The real answer is that our de facto two-party system is fucked. A multi-party system in which libertarians, greens, christians, center-rights, far-lefts, &c. could actually support parties with which they agree--and in which minor parties can actually have some leverage--would be peachy-keen.

Of course it'd be easier to just move north of the 49th.
Posted by Ophian on March 26, 2012 at 4:25 PM · Report this
41
I find it hilarious that some people still refer to the Republicans as "the party of small government." "Small", I guess, in terms of those parts that do anything helpful (education, health care, environmental regulation). Huge in terms of stuff that screws most of us while making them a boatload of money and/or telling people what to do (war, drug enforcement, birth control).
Posted by danfan on March 27, 2012 at 12:01 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy