They may claim or even intend to change the party from within but in reality they only sabotage those who would seek the same freedoms.
"You can affiliate yourself with the GOP or you can advocate for equal rights for LGBT people. You can't do both at once—and anyone who claims to be doing both is lying."

Out of curiosity, are you saying that the approach of "changing from within" is inherently doomed to failure, or could the Log Cabin Republicans have succeeded with better leadership and tactics?
Gay Republican is as much a contradiction in terms as "Republican Party" or "Conservative Intellectual."
Touche, Dan. It's time for the "house fags" to leave their master and embrace freedom. As it is, they're only enablers now. The mere existence of a gay Republican faction suggests to the public that the GOP couldn't REALLY be homophobic, or how would such a group exist?

Well, guess what? They REALLY are. Now call it a day.

Besides, remember what it was that you embraced in the Republican Party 40 years ago? Fiscal responsibility: Not a shred of that survived their tax giveaways. Smaller government: It's not smaller, just less effective, more corrupt, and more intrusive. Today's Democrats ARE those fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republicans from 40 years ago. Wake up. Help bury the Republican Party before it stinks any worse.
This is just my straight self spitballing here, but I think "house faggots" should refer to a subculture of gay dudes who like electronic dance music.

@2: I think the Log Cabin Republicans could have succeeded if their party weren't so batshit.

@4: Word.
I can hear it now: " ...But...but...Billary was against marriage equality and... and ... so was Obummer and ...and ... freedom and .....".

Shut up...just shut the EFF up!
Their taxes are more important than their civil rights. It's okay, you see only those "poors" or people in "flyover states" will experience gay-bashings and discrimination.

That and/or they're all secretly voting for a Libertarian who supports States' Rights to discriminate.
@2: As in the party is absolute poison.

@3: You can surely be right wing and gay. Being gay doesn't preclude a person from being classist, misogynistic or racist, either.

@4: "Besides, remember what it was that you embraced in the Republican Party 40 years ago? Fiscal responsibility: Not a shred of that survived their tax giveaways. Smaller government: It's not smaller"

They live in their own little fantasy world where all those things are possible and sought by the GOP. If they were actually fiscally conservative they'd have left the party decades ago.
Yet more proof of what I've said for years -- being a gay Republican is like being a Jewish Nazi. Not conducive to life and health.
@4, Drop that mic, dude(tte).

@5, That's the problem; the party has gotten more and more crazy (forgive me for sounding ableist, but I can't think of a better term) over the years, and the Tea Party coalition just tipped them over the edge.

@9, Well, they want it small enough to fit inside a woman's uterus. If I wanted politics in my vagina, though, I'd fuck a politician.
When will Larry Craig join the LCR?

It gets better, Larry.
All this anger toward the GOP is deserved. But I never understand why that anger is not directed at the Democratic Party who has been pro- LGBT for fifteen full minutes. Ok, maybe it's been a few years. So if the GOP gets on board with gay marriage, will they be forgiven as quickly? Libertarians- right all along on equality in marriage, prison reform, immigration reform, drug law reform, and abortion.
@2- Change from within happens when you change what is within your party. I see two ways that could happen.

One- the Republicans could realize that their homophobic platform causes them to lose gay votes. They become more LGBT friendly and more LGBT people then feel safe to join their party. Once inside, the diversity changes the party from within.

Two- Log Cabin Republicans within the party actively advocate for LGBT rights. They could start applying classic civil disobedience tactics- causing disruption and forcing their party to pay attention to them. Note this is similar to what BLM tries to do with Democrats and allies. It's also what antiwar protesters do within international groups, and it's similar (though it's a stretch) to what Bernie supporters want to do within the Democratic party. The idea is that if a large enough minority makes themselves a big enough problem for the majority that depend on their vote, then they can sway that majority to respond to their collective minority voice. This is a possibility for Log Cabin Republicans in a theoretical way, but in reality it just isn't going to happen for two reasons. The first is that there simply aren't enough of them. Republicans do not rely on the votes of conservative gays in the same way that Democrats rely on the votes of blacks for example. If all Log Cabin Republicans left the party, the Republicans would not care or notice. The second is that (unlike other examples) Log Cabin Republicans have a more friendly and more strategic option. The Democrats are the ones advocating for LGBT rights (or at least they are the ones responding to people who are advocating) whereas the Reps are the ones actively attacking them.

Given the current situation then, I think Dan is correct.
@13 Libertarians? You mean that party that opposes medicare, social security, the minimum wage, securities laws, aid to education, safety regulations, VA and FHA mortgage loans, food and drug laws, clean water, and any limits on drilling, mining, fracking and air pollution?

Sure, let's all be free to live in a dog-eat-dog Dickensian society on a poisoned, destroyed planet. Sounds like good times.

I don't know anything about you so I don't want to make any assumptions about your gender/sexuality/race, etc. But here's the thing. YES THERE IS ANGER. But when you are a member of one or more demographics that has to fight for civil liberties and/or basic rights, you are super angry ALL THE TIME. It's not like you have a safe place where you can relax and not be angry. After a time, if you are mature and political active for many years, then you just get used to the anger and you start to be strategic about it. So you have one group that is beating you up and another group that alternates between beating you up, ignoring you and sometimes listening to you. That's it. The second group is preferable over the very long term because in between beatings and periods of neglect, they sometimes listen to you. Or you sometimes force them to listen. And slowly, over years and years and years, they stop beating you up and start to advocate for you. This goes on for years and years more, and eventually you become that second group and you are advocating for yourself. And if you are ethical, then you will try really fucking hard not to beat people up and to look around and advocate for others. This is the difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to civil liberties. It's not that Democrats are any nicer as people inherently. It's that the Republicans have made themselves the party that beats people up (they exclude) and the Democrats BY DEFAULT have become the party that defends the people that the Republicans are beating up.

On a meta level, this is unfortunately because being forced to play survival politics distracts us all from bigger issues (which are non partisan and which serve the larger military industrial complex and continue wealth concentration) but you have to defend yourself when someone attacks you. It serves both parties to play identity politics, and YES THIS MAKES ME ANGRY. But what can I do? I have a uterus and a family of immigrants. I'm basically constantly pissed off at both parties. But one of them consistently proposes legislation that attacks me and my family while the other (though it takes a lot of shouting) consistently defends me and my family against that legislation. I wish we could put all this bullshit behind us and move on to more important issues, but we can't do that while Republicans are in power. We can maybe start to do that with Dems.
Life was rather simpler when the Democrats were open about disliking us almost as much.

(I omit a rebuttal to an earlier comment in this thread.)
@17: Against federal discrimination, pro States' Rights to discriminate!
"Libertarians- right all along"

It's a wonder trump wasn't drawing a gun and wearing a cowboy hat, as he came out at the convention. And using Queen's song! Freddie we cry for you.
So what song does Hillary need to come out with? A female singer would be good. I've got it;
" It's My Party", Lesley Gore, I think. Maybe not. Great song.
A Bobby Dylan song. Do it Hillary. Just ask him first.
@21: Killing in the name of - Rage Against The Machine.
I can see the many ironies here, because LGBT people ought to be able to decide on their view of economic and fiscal policy and vote accordingly, completely independent of their sexual and gender identity. But the Repugs are engaged in such a batshit culture war that any LGBT person with any self-respect surely has to steer clear. Really, some of the minds involved are clearly unwell - what is with the toilet obsession?

Part of the reason they ramp up the culture-war BS is that the economic policies are also batshit, would shaft the 99%, and would garner very few votes. So what is left to defend? Is it worth lending your support to policies and rhetoric that are directly causing suicide-level misery across the US?
@22. Good one.
one of the songs from Beyonce's Lemonade album. ' Freedom' sounds catchy.
. No, maybe not @ 22. Whatever Hillary's past sins.. She's got to be better than trump.
@25 Choosing to vote for a candidate because her opponent is a gigantic turd is all well and good and I'm very much in favor, but that doesn't mean we all have to pretend she's something other than she is.

@2 Change from within requires that the body in question be open to change - that they are capable if taking information and adjusting their views of the world accordingly. The GOP is the antithesis of progress. They are always talking about about the way things used to be. It's why the Trump slogan resonates so well with them - to make something great again implies strongly that you wish to revert to some previous state. This is a country founded by wealthy white men who owned slaves and thought women should be discouraged from reading, let alone voting. People who idolize racist misogynists aren't generally open to changing their views - they're still happy with the circa 1776 status quo.
@13 to quote a Danism: Take yes for an answer.
@26: "that doesn't mean we all have to pretend she's something other than she is."

Think what you will, regardless of my opinion on the Clintons she's more qualified and capable of the position than Trump.
@23: The Log Cabiners would gladly doom themselves if they thought it would save a buck. Even though their chosen candidates aren't "fiscally conservative".

Do you think they don't also buy into the race war rhetoric? The "culture wars" obviously appeal to them as well.
Dan, the left has some blame to share in this. We haven't done enough to explain why strengthening and protecting Social Security is a gay rights issue, why immigration reform is a gay rights issue, why choice is a hay rights issue, why fighting homelessness, universal education and healthcare are gay rights issues.

You started It Gets Better and Spreading Santorum. Can I recommend you get in front of a camera for another video? I'm thinking you can call it Don't Fuck Republicans.
And we're back to using gay rights and abortion as social-wedge issues to divert from the fact that both wings of the duopoly party do the bidding of their plutocratic principals on virtually everything else.
@31 - Are you saying they're not big issues in and of themselves or that they're not worthy enough to be considered a dividing line between the parties?

Because if you are, fuck you.
@13 - Such a false claim. To claim that the Democratic Party has only supported gay rights for a few years is just wrong. The Democratic Party has done so for decades.

I know when you say "a few years" that you're referring to the Democratic Party supporting marriage equality. But that's not the only LGBT rights issue. The Democratic Party clearly started on the path of working for LGBT equality forty years ago and has made continual progress in improving its position.

In 1972, the Democratic Party was the first major party to have openly gay speakers address the party on gay topics at the convention. In 1976, Jimmy Carter -- a Democrat-- was the first presidential candidate to publicly oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and in 1977 he was the first President to invite a delegation of lesbian and gay activists to the White House. In 1980, the Democratic Party was the first major political party to put a gay rights plank in the platform. The first openly LGBT people to face Senate confirmation hearings were appointed by Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

Yes, there have been hiccups. Yes, there have been blue dog Democrats that have allied with Republicans to throw roadblocks, and there have been allied Democrats who have accepted compromises or setbacks that turned out to be terrible, sometimes worse than expected.

But the reason we don't direct the same anger to the Democratic Party is because it is obvious that there are many, many people in the Democratic Party who for many decades have been moving the party forward on LGBT rights issues. And when we've had legislative successes, it's been Democrats who've spearheaded them. On the Republican side, there's zero evidence that the party has moved more than an inch or two.

Getting back to Dan's post....

While I can see some merit to the idea of advocating change from within, I have to agree with Dan that after 40+ years, it's time to admit defeat. Neither the Log Cabin Republicans nor any other LGBT Republican group has succeeded in changing a single, solitary thing within the Republican Party. Not one.

As Dan has said, the least effective group this side of NAMBLA.

Now, I wouldn't be a Republican even if they suddenly were just as good on LGBT issues because I'm also pro-choice, pro-labor, pro-science, very concerned about the environment and climate change, concerned about social security and other social issues, believe that businesses should be regulated to protect workers, the public and the environment, and have a number of other concerns. But if I were one of these Log Cabin types, maybe it would be time to look around and consider whether someone like Gary Johnson was a more suitable candidate for me. [He is not a more suitable candidate for ME. But he might be for some of these Log Cabin types.]
@31: Stein bobblehead spotted.

So are you working to change the two party system or are you voting third party and doing absolutely nothing to change the system?

(My guess is the latter. Smug and useless.)
Apologies, you could also be a delusional do-nothing Johnson supporter.
@30: Oh stuff it. They don't care about poor gays, either.

You're not going to give log cabiners empathy by comparing them to "the poors".

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.