Box Turtle Bulletin

Why can’t gay activists countenance the idea of a “Massachusetts Republican”?

I’m perfectly capable of countenancing it. Just not with my money (or my vote).

“Tolerant” is not a synonym for “deaf, dumb and blind.”

David

Which party is responsible for the majority of ammendments and laws banning same-sex marriage? Which party has created the most opposition to same-sex marriage, raising it as a wedge issue over and over again?

Which party’s first response to AIDS was to attempt to legislate internment camps for gay men and people with AIDS?

Which party consistently and actively opposed safer-sex education for 20 years?

Which party consistently uses anti-gay jingoism to ensure the election of its candidates?

Sally Kern, Pat Buchanan, Jesse Helms, Ronald Reagan – which party did they serve?

Which party is closely tied to Christian Reconstructionists and theocrats, who seek to impose a theocracy and recriminalize homosexuality, and institute the death penalty for same-sex sexual intimacy?

Which party has consistently profited, financially, materially and politically, by demonizing GLBTQ people (as well as the poor, people of color, women, and religious and ethnic minorities)?

I read Kirchick’s article this morning, and concluded that he had misrepresented and distorted the entire situation, ommitting crucial information while making unsubstantated claims to further his argument.

David

I do think it is ironic that a defense of Republican politics and gays who support the Republican party appears on the same page as a missive urgently requesting more money and assistance for Arizona in the fight against yet another anti-gay ballot measure.

“Economic” Republicans have been putting off a critical, character crucial decision for decades. Their party has been infiltrated by religious extremists who have successfully defined that party with social legislation, goals and idealogies that are punitive, oppressive, and theocratic. “Economic” Republicans must either reclaim their party and evict the religious right, or accept that by participating with the religious right, they endorse the persecutorial activities of the religious right.

When one keeps going to the dance, one cannot complain about one’s dancing partners.

Keep in mind, none of this even touches on whether or not the economic policies of the Republican party are ethical, viable, or appropriate.

Stefano A

In a somewhat similar story, the New York Post reported yesterday that Paul Colichman, the die-hard Democrat who owns Advocate and Out Magazines, is choosing not to support Barack Obama for what Colichman believes is inadequate support of the gay community. Colichman was villified.

My impressioon was that Colichman was not “villified” so much for not adequately supporting the gay community, as much as his reasoning for tearing up his check.

That is, Colichman had been a donator to HR Clinton, who is much less supportive of gay rights, at least with regard to the full repeal of DOMA (for example) than is Obama; yet, Colichman used Obama’s lack of support for gays as his rational for his tearing up his check. His entire reasoning seemed more than a little disingenuous and gave much more the impression of sour grapes that Obama would be the Democratic candidate rather than Clinton.

Timothy Kincaid

To keep this thread on track, I will be deleting future comments that do not stick closely to the topic. Sorry if that does not allow everyone their say, but that’s how this particular thread is going to progress.

well, unfortunately the Dems have a better track record on supporting our issues, whereas the Reps tend to be the ones fighting not only to end the freedoms we do have, but to reinstate criminality of our sexuality.

This is not, of course, black and white. There are PLENTY of dems who aren’t at all gay friendly and from what I gather several Reps who ARE pushing for equality.

The unfortunate thing, and what is missing from Timothy’s article is the Evangelical/Fundamentalists stranglehold on the Republican party. These people downright hate us, and if it weren’t for them, I think there would be less hatred of the Republicans by gays.

Simply put, I don’t want to vote for a party that has demonstrated that I don’t deserve equality, and that they think they have a right to keep me from it.

To me, the march for gay equality is very American. I don’t say that to disparage other countries, but the goals of the gay community, the beliefs are very much at the heart of what is America. Equailty before the law, The right to be an individual, the right to not be persecuted for your religious(or lack of) beliefs, the right to be represented in government, and to say and do as you please without government interferance. All of that is at the heart of our struggle and at the heart of our country. Gay equality is a very American struggle. It’s the same ideals that brought us away from Englahd, we fought a civil war over these principles.
A candidate that doesn’t understand the need for LGBT equality…to me…doesn’t understand the founding principles of America. And with that, I don’t care how good their foreign policy is, I don’t care whether they agree with me or not on other issues. If this very American struggle just doesn’t get to them, then I don’t think they can run my country. They wouldn’t even understand what it is they are running.
So I always laugh when people say that gay equality being a make or break position makes me a “one issue voter”. So I say to them, yeah, my “”one”” issue is Freedom. A candidate who doesn’t get that, doesn’t know how to run my country.

Jim Randell

“Is there a place in our community for those who will choose to vote for John McCain in November?”

of course, by definition, if you are gay, you are a member of the community (and already ‘in place’). The question is, what does a community do when members act against the self interest of the the community?

we cant ex-communicate them! we can only try to understand them. with that in mind, I will put forth two words: ‘Stockholm Syndrome’!

Discuss…

rusty

God Bless those Gay Republicans. I admit, I too, consider some dear Gay Republicans friends and colleagues. And they, too, appreciate my friendship. But for me, I have taken a strict stand when it comes time for a vote or to support GLBT folk. . .and sometimes for Gay Republicans ‘gay status’ is quickly usurped by other factors, most of the time, by economic status or family ties. Most of my GR (Gay Republicans) are folk of means, either by family or personal hard work. And many of them often have the ability to ‘pass’ in the right crowds and social venues(private clubs) And the GR folk are often critical of the more flamboyant guys, the masculine girls and the local Pride functions. But this wonderful group of GR are sometimes the first to head to Fire Island or P-town or even Castro or a private Girlz Cruise where they are not likely to be recognized. Not to label all my GR folk but there is a ‘thread’ of internalized homophobia in most of them and they often present a ‘common standard’ of DADT(don’t ask, don’t tell). It is sad that as a group, we can’t all come together for the same cause, but there are many who don’t need to… Think about Mary Cheney, and other folk. . .who really don’t need the gay movement to move forward.

AJD

I have to disagree with the writer on this one.

He writes, “a presidentâ€™s ability to impact the lives or freedoms of most gay persons is limited,” but this is wrong. It’s true that the president alone can do little, but what he can do is energize a large number of people to impact the lives and freedoms of gay people. Notice how George Bush’s campaign in 2004 got people riled up over same-sex marriage enough to ban it in 11 states.

McCain, let’s remember, supports banning same-sex marriage in Arizona and (presumably) in California as well, just not at the federal level. Whether his opposition arises from genuine convictions or a desire to attract votes, it’s obvious he is against the interests of the gay community, and a McCain presidency would likely work against our interests as well.

For Kirchick to call those who criticize Crutchley’s support for McCain “intolerant” is beyond stupid. What if Crutchley were a black man supporting Pat Buchanan? Would Kirchick label as “intolerant” those who called him an Uncle Tom?

I’m planning to vote for Obama anyway, but even if I agreed with McCain’s economic platform, his willingness to kiss anti-gay bigots’ butts would be enough to make me write in my Siamese cat before voting for McCain.

Colichman may be shortsighted in his unwillingness to support Obama, especially considering the high likelihood that his lack of support for same-sex marriage is probably just to avoid alienating evangelicals and the fact that his running mate considers same-sex marriage inevitable. But Crutchley is just an idiot if he thinks that any good will come from being the chocolate bar that votes for Easter.

rusty, not to get into any GR (thanks for the acronym) bashing, as I think it’s counter productive, but I have noticed a lot of wealthy, affluent GRs and have yet to meet any working-class GRs.

I think you have a point in that some GRs have been able to use money, power, and ample closetspace to transcend homosexuality. So they don’t understand why the rest of us have such a hard time of it. I had a boss who was a proud LCR member with an autographed photo of himself and Nancy Reagan. He spent a great deal of time apologizing/justifying all the classist elitist BS that came out of his mouth, and seem to have utter contempt for anyone who flamed. Whenever he had vendors or other guests in the office he butched it up, something he seemed to do without even noticing it himself. He was in the 8th or 9th year with his partner, but they live on opposite sides of the city.
The only thing I can think of is that that some GRs feel they’ve won. If being a little closeted allows them to eventually succeed (whatever their personal definition is)they don’t care. That may be fine for someone with enough power and money to either hide their sexuality or render it irrelevant, the rest of us have to fight for a fair government.

Dave Hughes

Overall, I agree with this article. If we are as quick to condemn those with opposing viewpoints as many conservative Christians are, then we are no better (in that regard).

One correction: Crutchley, when called a “liberal republican” said he took great offense at being called a liberal.

Finally, I must disagree with James Kirchick’s assertion that “Gayness is a sexual orientation, not a political one. Aside from their sexuality, gay people are no different from heterosexuals.”

I find this belief to be naive, overly simplistic and inaccurate. Our gayness affects not only whom we seek for emotional and sexual attachment, it reaches into virtually every other aspect of our lives. It informs our political viewpoints, our religions faith, the friends we choose, our family relationships, where we work, where we can live safely, how we spend our money, where we travel, our entertainment choices, and on and on.

Jarred

Has anyone else considered the implications of the fact that Crutchley is co-owner of a gay male hookup site? Significant loud voices within or normally supportive of the Republican party spend a great deal of time and energy villifying LGBT folk by trying to portray them as “too sexual” and by portraying homosexuality as being “about sex rather than love.” And let’s face it, a signficant number of gay Republicans spend a lot of time talking about certain kinds of gay people — including those who are “promiscuous” — give gay people a bad name.

So now we have a man who makes his money (or at least some portion of it) by running a site meant to help the “kinds of gays” often looked down upon and/or complained about by Republicans — even many of the gay Republicans. And what does he do with the money he makes from these men who are interested in hookups? He donates it to a candidate who belongs to a party that villifies those very men — or at least wishes they wouldn’t be so visible.

While your quesiton about whether the gay community can allow for a diversity of political opinion has merit, I think you’ve chosen a rather troublesome example to use in order to explain the argument.

Kith

I once was talking with a single issue voter on the idea of how can anyone be gay and republican. During this conversation the idea came up between the difference between those of “means” and the rest of us.

There are many things money can shield you from. If you can afford to higher a lawyer and own houses in multiple states you can jimmy it so your spouse is legally your child or have air tight contracts that creates a support system like marriage or leverage some other loophole to gain advantage for your self and your partner. You can afford to go to court when a hospital, gym, or employer gets snarky with you or just afford to go somewhere else. You can higher drivers, body guards, or afford to go to places with proper security if gay bashers get out of hand. Lastly if things get really really bad, you can just move to another country that is more liberal on gay rights (How many gay republicans have summer homes in other countries?) On the other hand, money can’t save you from an increase in capital gains tax. It can’t stop a new tax raise from costing you an extra $30,000 a year. It can’t stop a windfall tax from gutting your oil stocks. It can’t alter bankruptcy laws so you don’t lose your $10,000,000 home while absolving yourself of unwanted debt. It can’t do anything to get rid of the inheritance tax, which will eat away at mumsy’s (your) money.

The result is for many people of “means” or in family of “means” it is in their best interest to support the people who will protect their money, because as long as the money is safe, they are safe.

Timothy Kincaid

rusty and Jason,

Perhaps we have different experiences, but most of the gay Republicans I have met (and I have met many) are working class, not affluent. Additionally, most of the gay Republicans I know are not at all closeted (except sometimes they are a bit closeted about their party affiliation).

Kith

The only person I know with a foreign summer home is a life-long Democrat.

Dave,

Thanks for catching the error.

a. mcewen

I think Jared’s point says a lot about the argument. Republican policies and the attitudes of those who align with them (i.e. the anti-gay industry) creates a standard of behavior in some gays that causes them to seek “hook ups.”

I’m certainly accusing Crutchley of plotting to rich off of this but there is something profound to be said about him supporting a candidate that will most likely contribute to that sad status quo.

a. mcewen

I made a mistake. I meant to say “I’m certainly NOT accusing Crutchley of plotting to get rich off of this . . .”

My keyboard is acting funny, Again I apologize.

Jim Burroway

Re: “Further, a presidentâ€™s ability to impact the lives or freedoms of most gay persons is limited, and both candidates seek to keep it that way.”

I disagree with this wholeheartedly. Clinton did sign DADT and DOMA into law, and Bush has promised vetoes of hate crimes legislation and ENDA (inclusive or not).

But of the two candidates running today, one has promised a break from the past, and will sign repeals of DADT and DOMA, as well as the enactment of ENDA and hate crimes legislation, depending on what makes it through Congress.

The other candidate, not so much.

That said, I do believe everyone has the right to support whatever candidate they choose. I believe that everyone has a write to decide to patronize a particular business for whatever reason, or to discourage others from patronizing a particular business for any reason. I support the right of anyone to organize whatever boycott they choose, and I support the right of others to either ignore, join, or openly mock such boycotts.

The first amendment exists for all these things. And while I’m at it, I also support the right to be inconsistent. The first amendment’s right to free expression protects that as well.

So as to the title question — are gays politically intollerant? Not any more than any other group.

rusty

Yes Tim, Republicans, like Dems fall along all points of the economic spectrum. But like Crutchley, there are those GRs who end up using there monies to support conservative politicos and mingle with similar supporters under the veil of shared ‘traditional values’. During my time in Oregon while Lon Mabon of the Oregon Citizens Alliance with his cohort Scott Lively (of the current gay hate group Watchmen on the Walls) worked to eliminate GLBT rights, I attended ‘A’ list dinners and fundraisers. During one dinner, a couple of other guests (GRs) were quick to point out that ‘We brought this upon ourselves by asking too much.” in reference to the anti-gay propostitions. Some gays and lesbians ‘pass easily’ in society and need very little support. . .Others are looking for change. Change is Hard. and often frigthening.

rusty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Citizens_Alliance

More about Oregon Citizens Alliance

The group gained statewide, national, and international attention in 1992, when it proposed Ballot Measure 9. This initiative would have amended the Oregon Constitution to prevent what the OCA called “special rights” for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. According to many civil rights activists, it would have gone further, mandating state discrimination against sexual minorities.

from wikipedia: On August 30, 1993, Senator John McCain spoke at an OCA fund-raising dinner.

Timothy Kincaid

rusty,

You may be misunderstanding McCain’s relationship with the OCA:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/map…ains_temper.html

Johno

Sorry but the underlying cause of the Republican side of the argument at this time is that liberal gays are ‘intolerant’ because they chose to stop putting money in Crutchley’s pocket. Which is also why he lost his “job” (but not his share in the company.) That is simply insane. I think you are buying into a tired meme here. For years now, every time anyone points out a republican crime, act of hatred, show of intolerance, or chooses not to put money into a republican pocket, they are accused of ‘intolerance’ or ‘stifling of free speech.’ Insane, period. They don’t want intolerance of intolerance. They want free speech without consequences. America doesn’t work that way, and I hope it never does.

I don’t deny that gays have only one thing in common at root, or that there are some liberals who are just as intolerant as republicans; but allowing this Manhunt issue to be what defines these terms for us all is simply ridiculous.

Swampfox

I guess that many of my fellow gays don’t remember Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican nominee for President. His nickname was Mr. Conservative. No one would imagine to question his conservative credentials. He was a staunch conservative Republican ……. who was adamantly for Gay Rights.

I am not happy with McCain’s recent pandering to the evangelicals in the Republican Party.

I do not agree with the Democratic Party on two key issues – tax and defense. And, it is my belief that we can’t tie our cause to any one politician or any one party.

MR Bill

Tim, just what do you think is wrong with Mr. Obama’s tax plan? Real economists (I’m thinking Delong and Krugman here) say it’s sounder than McCain’s.
In general, it makes more sense to me to not support any candidate who is going to support a tax structure that will further widen the gap between the wealthiest and all the rest of us.
Or am I misreading your piece?
Of course people have the right to be Republican and gay. They have the right to be Evangelical Christian and gay.
But they don’t have the right to be exempt from criticism from those who don’t support their ideology. If we believe something we should be ready to accept the consequences of that belief, and the reactions of others.
Sometimes, the whole Right’s attitude seems to be “we don’t have to care what you think..” In a republican democracy that doesn’t work.

John

Like Jim Burroway, I would have to strongly disagree with the comment: â€œFurther, a presidentâ€™s ability to impact the lives or freedoms of most gay persons is limited, and both candidates seek to keep it that way.â€

The Defense of Marriage Act is blatantly unconstitutional. It clearly violates the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Even the Christian Right understand this. That is why they want a federal Constitutional Ammendment against gay marriage.

Presidents appoint Supreme Court Justices. McCain has promised the Christian Right that he is going to follow the same path at George Bush in picking Justices.

Who do you really want appointing Justices who decide if you are defacto a criminal (Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas), or cases involving Don’t Ask Don’t Tell or the Defense or Marriage Act?

On gay rights issues, this election isn’t even close. If gay voters want to vote for McCain because they support our continued involvement in Iraq, the Bush version of the war on Terror, the tax cuts (both income and inheritance) that were pushed through during the Bush years, then go ahead and vote for McCain based or priorities other than gay rights. But don’t then turn around and kid yourself that it isn’t going to be a setback for gay civil rights.

tristram

“While neither (Obama) nor John McCain favor(s) marriage and both are opposed to a federal marriage amendment, his answers on ENDA and DADT are more in alignment with the equality goals of the community.”

While there a number of thoughts in the article that appear reasonable to me, the breathtaking disingenuousness of the first clause quoted above invalidates the entire piece in my mind. To suggest an equivalence to the candidates’ positions on governmental treatment of same sex relationship is ridiculous. McCain, like Fred Thompson and many other conservatives (some of them virulently anti-gay), opposed the FMA as being contrary to federalism, one of the ‘first principles’ of their credo. In recent months, McCain has said on several occasions that he is perfectly willing to jettison his opposition to the FMA at the behest of his new evangelical bedfellows. Even when he was opposing the FMA, he (gratuitously, under no significant pressure) supported the earlier proposed amendment in Arizona which would have outlawed ssm, civil unions, domestic partnerships and virtually every form of state recognition of our relationships. And he now is publicly supporting the AZ and CA amendments (and I assume Florida’s as well, since his tanned sock puppet has flipped on that one).

On the other hand, Obama opposes the CA amendment and hs repeatedly stated clear support for legal equality for same-sex relationships in every respect short of calling them marriages.

To suggest that their differences on ‘gay issues’ are limited to ENDA and DADT is just bizarre.

Jim Burroway

Swampfox

I certainly do remember Goldwater’s support for gay rights. If more “conservative” Republicans were more like “Mr. Conservative” himself, I don’t think we’d be having this debate. We may be having a different one, but not this one.

Lynn David

It’s about keeping our freedoms intact and not stepping backwards. It’s very simply about the supreme court and the president who will choose his new judges.

This will be my 10th vote for a president, and also the 10th for which I have had some small honor to perform some duty in a campaign (stretching back to JFK when I was 5/6, and RFK at the age of 13). Even so, I’m prone to make mistakes, I voted for Reagan in 1980, I corrected my mistake in 1984 (it was the economy, stupid!).

I have the most homophobic of state senators whose brochures to his electorate look like AFA adverts. My congressman was Hostettler, who would have branded the Federal DOMA on our foreheads as off limits to the Supreme Court despite its unconstitutionality. I’ll take gay-neutral (like our current congressman, Edwards, over any anti-gay any day (or panderer to the anti-gay as McCain has proven to be).

At 54, I intend to never make such a blatantly stupid political mistake like 1980 again. My hope is no other gay person would either.

Pepe Johnson

Always an interesting topic. Yes, the Goldwater and Taft Republicans seem like ancient history today. What a shame…

I just can’t see why so many gay people are blindly loyal to the Democratic party. I’ve worked several pride events in different states on the Don’t ask, Don’t tell issue. I’ve met a lot of left-leaning and right-leaning LGBT folks. What always makes me puzzled is that blind loyalty. During what had been a rather innocent conversation, I pointed out that Bill Clinton signed both DADT and DOMA, before his reelection. The older man I was talking to started to berate me up one side and down the other – a lot of which cannot be repeated. But at the end of the day, I knew that I had my facts, and he had his fantasies.

Reality made me leave the Democratic party, but kept me from joining the Republicans as well. I joined the Libertarian party a couple years ago. Reality again makes me understand that the LP has a lot of work before it sees someone in Congress or the White House, which is why no matter what party I belong to, I am always independent and any candidate that wants my vote has to earn it.

PSUdain

Jason D said something interesting earlier, “Simply put, I donâ€™t want to vote for a party that has demonstrated that I donâ€™t deserve equality, and that they think they have a right to keep me from it.”

But what about people who vote for individual candidates instead of parties?

And what if both candidates are unpalatable for various reasons? Just because I can’t pull a lever for Obama (or maybe McCain either–we’ll see) in November doesn’t mean that I’m pulling the big one at the top marked simply “Republican Ticket”.

And as for your (and rusty’s) over the top, outdated, outrageously broad characterizations of gay Republicans, well, I don’t care for them one bit. I am not rich. My parents are both teachers in a small public school. I have accumulated debt in my going to college. I work a little on the side to keep some spending money in my pocket. We have no summer home either in the U.S. or abroad (though we do own an RV that my parents saved up for). In fact, the farthest “abroad” I’ve been able to get was Canada.

And most of the other gay Republicans I know are not much different from that. Stolid middle-class folks. But just keep painting a big scary villainous picture, if it helps you to avoid dealing with the reality of diverse ideas that don’t arise just from someone being a greedy S.O.B. who was born into money.

(And rusty, even when you admit, very briefly, to diversity among gay GOPers, all you want to talk about is the same old tired picture–in the very next sentence even!)

And, just for a little further information, I don’t just shove aside LGBT concerns. I serve as a leader in two LGBT organizations on campus and will continue to do so. I do not currently serve on any Republican organizations, though I maintain a weak association with one.

Jason D and rusty, get your heads out of your [posteriors] on this one. I have just about had it with the line of completely pejorative and bilious B.S. that seems to flow from the mouths of too many in the community whenever gay Republicans are discussed.

Priya Lynn

Timothy said “But those who are concerned about the economic viability of the nation may look at Barack Obamaâ€™s tax plan and wonder how anyone would entrust the top job to him.”.

Are you joking? Clinton produced budget surpluses, while under Bush the deficit has ballooned to monstrous proportions that will cripple the U.S. economy for many years to come. It’ll be disaster for the U.S. to be run by another Republican administration.

It seems you’re living in a fantasy world where you think the old adage about Republicans being fiscally responsible and Democrats being spenders is true. The reality has been exactly the opposite.

“And as for your (and rustyâ€™s) over the top, outdated, outrageously broad characterizations of gay Republicans, well, I donâ€™t care for them one bit.”

PSUDain, nor do I care when people dismiss my life story and experiences as if they didn’t happen. Here are a few sentences that you happen to have missed in my two posts above:

“This is not, of course, black and white. There are PLENTY of dems who arenâ€™t at all gay friendly and from what I gather several Reps who ARE pushing for equality.”

Did you miss that one altogether? A pity.

Here’s another, I’ve put bold into it just to make sure you don’t miss the important parts a second time around:

“rusty, not to get into any GR (thanks for the acronym) bashing, as I think itâ€™s counter productive, but I have noticed a lot of wealthy, affluent GRs and have yet to meet any working-class GRs.”

Am I not allowed to notice things? Am I not allowed to point them out if I notice them? Am I not allowed to say I have not met someone? These are not broad characterizations, these are facts from my life. Here’s a hint, don’t ever tell anyone they didn’t experience what they experienced unless you were there.

A broad characterization does not involve words like “I have noticed”. A broad characterization would be “All Republicans have red eyes.” There is no room in that sentence for exceptions or the possibility that I the speaker is mistaken. However saying “I have noticed a lot of Republicans with red eyes and have yet to meet one without red eyes.” is not a characterization, it is an observation.

Are you trying to suggest I didn’t have an LCR boss who butched it up for visitors and said classist and elitist things all the time? Were you there, because I don’t think you were. I in no way indicated that I felt or believed this was typical of an LCR. Again, I was relating FACTS from my life, I didn’t draw them out into a larger picture of LCRs in general, but it’s interesting that you stopped listening and starting painting that picture for me. Please, tell me, what other beliefs do I hold since you clearly know me better than I know myself, and have been personal witness to every event in my life.

“Jason D and rusty, get your heads out of your [posteriors] on this one. I have just about had it with the line of completely pejorative and bilious B.S. that seems to flow from the mouths of too many in the community whenever gay Republicans are discussed.”

And I have had enough of people who don’t read what is put before them carefully before flying off the handle. I have had enough of pompous folks who can’t handle an honest observation without jumping to the defense. And people say liberals are the ones obsessed with political correctness! I never made any broad generalizations, I merely related my experience, which I never said was definitive or all-encompassing.
I am very careful about the words I use, and I will not have someone mischaracterizing me so they can have a punching bag. Fail.

MR Bill

I just broke up with a Log Cabin Republican in April; a nice man who never missed an opportunity use his superior financial position (and he was a butch power bottom, selfish and controlling, and rather closeted)to ‘put me in my place’. He was a Neil Boortz fan, and increasingly racist, an engineer who was, all our friends say, empathy challenged. He could be generous and charming, but having got an inheritance, a great pension and wonderful insurance (he’s HIV+), didn’t give a shit about me (and I’m a single parent struggling to keep a construction job in a shitty economy) except as a sex partner who he only wanted every other weekend (we had drifted into this pattern). When, after 13 years, he told friends (and I was standing there)that “we’re not lovers” and told me “we don’t have a relationship, and I don’t want a lover”, I was over it.
His LCR buddies seem to be similarly indifferent to others, as long as they are in financial ‘comfort’..
Subjective, but, as they say, I’ve got some skin in this game.

Duncan

I feel obliged to make some observations. One is that Jonathan Crutchley was paying out of his own pocket; this did not in any way involve the firm. If clients were cancelling, that shows a lack of commercial sense. Hiring its services was not directly contributing to any political campaign.
Another is that no social group or institution should feel bound to any party, or that only one party can represent it, or that a candidate can represent them because they’re from the same group. If voting Republican is not palatable to you, you could look at the Libertarians’ platform.
And whilst today’s Republican Party is deeply tied to the Evangelical Christians, this group is changing. It is coming round to pushing environmentalism (or “creation care”) and poverty ahead of government-imposed private morals. The LCR are doing a needed job and deserve our support; there is a danger that assuming the party will always oppose gays could be self-fulfilling.
Fianlly, don’t judge politicians on single votes. Clinton signed DADT only after failing to have the ban lifted completly. There was little else he could have done. In a nation as large as yours, national parties are bound to vary widely. (Isn’t there one state where the Republicans are strong but most of their voters support gay marriage?)

MR Bill

When I was in college, I knew gay Republicans who worshiped Ronald Reagan, as manly and an economic royalist. They viewed themselves as members of the ruling class (this is Emory Uni. in Atlanta, a sort of second rank Ivy league wanna be)(and I say that as an alumni). Most of them died of AIDS in the ’80’s.
And there were gay Nazis. The career and fate of Ernst Roehm should be an instructive.
The Republicans have been getting milage out of gay bashing for years. The local party guys are really into hating teh gay (odd, since the weird little Georgia town I live in has had the most interesting inmigration of gay exurbanites, opening small businesses and buying log cabins..).
The Dems have a lot of problems, and I’m quite certain there are a lot of folks who who have had a bad experience with them. Just don’t buy into the Republican=Manly stuff, and look at what the Bush team has actually done to the economy, as opposed to what they promise or claim. It ain’t pretty, and I really don’t think the Republic can stand 4 more years of Republican rule.

Alex Blaze

I honestly don’t care much about the ManHunt/Crutchley situation, that was more a question of the ManHunt community defining itself.

But Jamie Kirchick really has some chutzpah if he’s going to be talking about political tolerance, or any sort of tolerance. The man’s foreign policy vision amounts to little more than “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.” I think that we should see his invocation of “political tolerance” in the same vain that all conservative commentators use it – to get the lamer, more confused liberals to give them more power, power which they intend to use to silence dissent.

I doubt there are many people who are voting single-issue on gay rights anyway. That’s a cop-out – most LGBT people I know consider them in conjunction with other issues and end up on the Democratic side anyway. And I don’t really see the problem with Obama’s tax plan (McCain’s, on the other hand…..)

And how do you know that McCain isn’t a homophobe? He just happens to support every policy a homophobe would, except for maybe FMA (I wouldn’t put it past him to flip-flop on that too). Whether he is or not isn’t really the question – he’s acting like one and should be treated like one.

“I feel obliged to make some observations. One is that Jonathan Crutchley was paying out of his own pocket; this did not in any way involve the firm. If clients were cancelling, that shows a lack of commercial sense. Hiring its services was not directly contributing to any political campaign.”
Duncan, I think you’re missing a point here. Crutchley isn’t merely an employee of Manhunt, he’s a founder/owner. So yes, he was using his own funds…which came straight from the manhunt profit pool. Even after being removed, he’s still going to get paid out of the manhunt profit pool. So if a client paid Manhunt $1, a good portion of that dollar went to Crutchley, and was part of the check sent to McCain. So , while it may not have come directly from Manhunt, it came from one of Manhunt’s owners. People have every right to stop giving money to an individual who is then going to use that money to support something they disagree with.

rusty

Good Day,
Tim, I have seen the Oregon Live blog and was in Portland during McCain’s visit back in 93 but that was 25 years ago. My issue is that McCain, although stumping for the R party overall, met with the OCA. . .for me, a question arises since it was noted that McCain had the option to not attend but chose to ‘stump’ and mingle with the conversative ‘hate-mongers’. I am wondering if he would have attended a KKK meeting or an Aryan Nation meeting in the interest of the R Party.

PSUdain, sorry if it seems like my head is buried but maybe you want to pull yours out of the sand. The Grand Old Party and Reagan did such a sweeping job in the early days of HIV/AIDS. . .”Reagan would ultimately address the issue of AIDS while president. His remarks came May 31, 1987 (near the end of his second term)”.
So, please forgive me if I have hard time with the GOP. Yes, there are more moderate members of the GOP represented by GLBT folk. Again, there are liberal GR and conservative GDems. Awhile back David Benkof wrote of Bush’s wondrous generousity in the work towards controlling HIV and AIDS worldwide, but as someone with close ties with the HIV pos community as a caregiver/educator/advocate, I am aware of the fact that the Republicans have slowly whittled away national funding and have curtailed effective prevention strategies because of the whining of the conservative Christian Right. So PSUdain, I will pull my head out of my posterior if you will pull yours out of the sand. HIV numbers are up in the Gay community, because of Republicans pulling strings in the health and human services offices and our dear friends in the non-white communities are taking a hit with ineffective prevention/care programs also. Thanks, Ciao

rusty

Sorry tim, that was 15 years ago. . .when I was in Portland.

Ben in Oakland

I’ll throw in a couple of comments, echoing Jason’s.

The republican party claims to be the party of fiscal responsibility, yet in 12 years of republican control of congress, and 8 years in the white house, we have the financial meltdowns, the housing mess, 9 Trillion in Federal debt, a staggering trade deficit, and on and on and on. Sorry, don’t buy that.

The republicans claim to be the party of individual freedom, but we all know what they think about REAL freedom, especially for gay people. You’re free to agree with me freedom is what they are selling.

The republicans claim to be the party of states’ rights, but we have the FMA, the opposition to state medical marijuana laws, Terry Schiavo, and so on. States’ rights except when they disagree with out centralist agenda.

The republicans claim to be best on National security, which is why we’re in Iraq and Afghanistan and our standing in the world has plummeted.

But here’s the real issue. I will proudly admit I am a single issue voter. If a candidate or party does not support gay rights, it doe not get my votes. Ever. The LAST time I voted for a republican was John Anderson in 1980, and Milton Marks sometime in the ’80’s. But not because I have blind self interest going on– though there is that, certainly.

The reasons are simple. 1) If you don’t have the intelligence to understand that the argument against the full inclusion of gay people in our society and the end of this stupid prejudice is not about gay people at all, but about prejudice, religious prejudice, and intolerance of difference, then you just don’t have the intelligence necessary to lead this country.

And if you don’t have the commitment to freedom and liberty to realize that gay people deserve that as well, then you don’t have the principles necessary to lead this country, either. What the Repubs have shown us is that intelligence and commitment to principle are even LESS important to them than they are to the democrats– i.e., not at all. The only party worse than the democrats is the Republicans, and that’s pretty sad.

Bruce Garrett

Just one small point… I’m getting a little tired of this argument that McCain isn’t all that bad on the marriage issue since he and Obama both oppose a federal amendment against it. Yes that’s true, as far as it goes. But its the same kind of slippery truthiness that I come here to Box Turtle to see debunked.

You know…I’ve seen Jim trying hard to raise support here on Box Turtle for defeating the latest attempt to put an anti same-sex marriage amendment in the Arizona state constitution. You surely know that McCain gave the previous, and more broad version his support. And you surely know that he’s endorsed the repeal attempt in California.

Obama has done none of this. McCain, in his Senate floor speech opposing the federal marriage amendment, said the amendment was unnecessary, in part, because the Defense of Marriage Act allows states to refuse to recognize the same-sex marriages of other states. Obama is on record favoring repeal of DOMA. McCain is on record, In That Speech, as saying that if DOMA is repealed, a federal amendment would Then be necessary. But only then.

So really, McCain’s position on the federal amendment isn’t so much about the rights of same sex couples, as limiting federal power.

Do you see the difference here? It’s one thing to regard a federal amendment as unnecessary. It’s one thing to regard it as the wrong approach. It’s another thing to regard it as wrong.

dlm

Well, Tim, I donÂ´t know where you stood on this issue of tolerance within the Â´gayÂ´community before but now I am sure you can see how it feels to be a minority within a minority.

For years I have listened to gay men speak with great hatred for gay republicans while we were stocking the shelves of a computer store. (Yes, I am of the working class still at 57 years of age! According to many posters here I guess that makes me a minority within a minority within a minority since most gay republicans are rich with trust funds.)

I listened and always wondered if these men realized that they were speaking of me just like the conservative right speaks of them. I wondered if they would ever see the hypocrisy of their ways. Some did eventually, but most did not.

Many posters here have given reasons for voting for Obama or McCain which was not the intent of the article at all in my opinion. The central issue is how do we treat minorities-either those we know in real life or those only in our minds?

I remember the gay community saying many times that those conservative right wingers do know gay people–they just do not realize that they know them.
Those folks work next to gay men or lesbians everyday and never know…though they like the person only because they donÂ´t know that they are gay.

I believe the same is true for many gay republican bashers on this site…you do know gay republicans or independents who do not always vote for the democratic candidate. You work with some, go to the same bars with some, eat at the same restaurants with some–and you LIKE them ONLY because you do not know who they are.

I have spoken up before in each of those settings to those Â´liberalÂ´gay men who always liked me before Â´they knew.Â´ After they Â´found out about me,Â´in every case things changed. They no longer were interested in what I had to say about anything. Now, I know you are not like that, so before you post your response of hatred, I acknowledge that not all gay liberals are like this. It is just MY eperience of many, many years.

The discussion here is not about politics (or it should not be). Whether you are voting for Obama, McCain, or Micky Mouse is not the question. The heart of the matter is this–as a liberal thinker, while you are expressing your valid opinions–how do you treat those who are more of a minority than even you are? This might define how truly LIBERAL you are.
Peace to all!

David Benkof

Good for you, Timothy, for asking hard questions. You make good points in your essay above.

Interesting post, Tim. Thanks. Most of the responses have been about what I’ve come to expect. I’ll keep this short: until the Democrats pick someone in the mold of Truman or JFK on defense they’ll never get my vote for president. I will not support someone like Obama whom I believe will be a lousy CiC during a time of war. If this were peacetime I’d be more willing to think about taking a risk but so the social cons can get the comeuppance they so richly deserve, but the world is still a dangerous place. McCain isn’t perfect but I trust him to be in charge of the military.

Congress and state elections are a different matter entirely. I can’t stand Pelosi and Reid but the Virginia GOP, which is far more rabid than the national party on social issues, has forced me to help add another member to the Dem Senate Caucus.

Walt

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid59442.asp

I agree with Tim that “when we demonize each other and segregate and exclude, we weaken ourselves and hurt our cause overall.”

I wouldn’t envy the Gay Republicans nor joint their ranks, but they serve an important purpose in American politics. There is a real need to keep fair-minded people in the Republican tent. If all the moderates leave the party, it becomes the bastion of the far-right wingnuts, as it is now. (In some ways, I disagree with Tim’s comment that “a presidentâ€™s ability to impact the lives or freedoms of most gay persons is limited.” Bush really set the tone to allow the right wing to takeover GOP party politics over the last 8 years.)

I respect Log Cabin Republicans when they are unflinchingly critical of anything that goes against LGBT interests. Of course, since the party on the national level is so virulently anti-gay, it’s hard to understand where they can have an impact.

However, activity on the LOCAL level is SO important to influence the party from the ground up. Just as the Gill Foundation is working to identify gay and gay-friendly candidates in state, county, and town levels, Gay Republicans have the ability to influence Republicans to work on common ground with LGBT folks.

Most significantly, the Log Cabin Republicans worked with the Republican majority in the New York State senate to introduce the Safe Schools for All Students Act, which would protect kids from being bullied in public schools because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill is considered a â€œrules billâ€ — a bill introduced by the majority that is automatically understood to have the assent of the majority leader.

So we need to hold organizations accountable like LCR when they don’t serve our interests, but applaud them when they do. Of course, we need to keep the Dems accountable to us, too.

Remember, “we are the people we have been waiting for.”

“Interesting post, Tim. Thanks. Most of “the responses have been about what Iâ€™ve come to expect. Iâ€™ll keep this short: until the Democrats pick someone in the mold of Truman or JFK on defense theyâ€™ll never get my vote for president. I will not support someone like Obama whom I believe will be a lousy CiC during a time of war. If this were peacetime Iâ€™d be more willing to think about taking a risk but so the social cons can get the comeuppance they so richly deserve, but the world is still a dangerous place. McCain isnâ€™t perfect but I trust him to be in charge of the military.”

This is one of the things I don’t get. I have noticed, some Republicans get all caught up on defense and any number of issues that no president ever permanently solves. We went from the cold war, to the gulf war, to Bosnia, to the Iraq war (let’s not forget we’re still in Afghanistan), next is probably Russia(gee I thought we were done with them!), Iran, possibly North Korea.
To me, I don’t think we can wait until it’s convenient and easy to get civil equality. No other minority has ever waited until it was easy or simple.

The World has ALWAYS been a dangerous place. I don’t think that’s something Obama, McCain, or even Nader can fix in 4-8 years. Even if they did, the next president will probably decide we need to invade some other country.

So how much longer should I wait for something that was promised to me in 1776? Ballpark?

Rob Lll

I second what Jason said above, but I’ll take it one step further. Andrew Sullivan has an excellent post today in which he says the most worrying aspect of a potential McCain administration is foreign policy (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t…ars-and-fear.html). I concur. IMO, McCain’s reflexive belligerence, his tendency to escalate in response to any international crisis would make the world far more dangerous, not less. I don’t want a hothead whose idea of a joke is to hum “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” as CIC. Ever.

On issues of LBGT equality, I’m actually not so worried. I think that train has already left the station for good. McCain would make some terrible judicial appointments, but even that would only slow down our progress, not stop it entirely.

Timothy Kincaid

This thread is veering from the topic.

I’ll be deleting future comments that do not address the topic of the thread.

Thanks

Rob Lll

Sorry! :(

JasonD: I consider the president’s responsibility as CiC to be the most important one of his many duties. It’s not a matter of being able to “fix” foreign policy that concerns me, it is who is the better person during a crisis. I believe McCain is that person, not Obama. He lacks experience, has no understanding of the military nor has he shown good judgment in some of his past associations – the most offensive being Bill Ayers. Making excuses why the Dems cannot produce another Truman or JFK on defense, while being more liberal in other areas does not cut it. Provide one and I’ll consider voting for them because to me defense takes priority over everything else.

Tim: My apologies if I contributed to the straying OT. However, these comments do help explain to others why our views differ from what appears to be the majority of gays. The stereotype of rich closeted gay men voting GOP because of economics, religion or whatever just isn’t true. I’m out, blue collar and my priority in voting does not fit that stereotype. I’m not even a huge fan of a McCain Administration, I just consider the alternative to be worse for the issues I believe are most important. Yet even so, the response I usually get from many liberal gays is in reaction the stereotype and not the reality.

Rob Lll

One other thing…as much as I disagree with Republican policies on, well, almost everything, I think Walt is absolutely right when he points out that the LCR folks are important to have around. If you consider our struggle for equality to be a “war” (and the adversaries of LGBT equality certainly do), it works to our advantage to be openly present in every sector of American society, even those which are hostile to us. You can’t effectively fight an enemy who is everywhere, and that’s one of the reasons the religious right will eventally lose.

AJD

Having lived in Oregon before, I find McCain’s speaking before the Oregon Citizens Alliance deeply troubling, especially considering that he did this in the midst of their campaign to effectively eliminate gay rights in Oregon, even if it happened 15 years ago. The OCA is one of the most viciously anti-gay organizations out there, and unless McCain has unequivocally disavowed any ties with it, then being gay and voting for him is only a few steps away from suicide.

Mark my words: If McCain wins, then we can forget about same-sex marriage, ENDA or inclusion in hate-crime laws. We can expect, however, an even more emboldened religious right, more right-wing judicial appointments and more vetoes of gay-rights legislation courtesy of the McCain White House.

This isn’t an issue of single-issue voting, nor is it a matter of ideological diversity within the gay community. The rights our community has fought hard to win for almost 40 years are at stake. You have to be either a sucker or a masochist to be gay and vote for McCain.

If you’re just going on economic conservatism, then vote for Bob Barr. He doesn’t stand a chance in hell of winning, but at least he isn’t out to make our lives miserable.

AJD

I’ll add that if you’re hoping for the GOP to change on gay rights, then you’ve got a long way to go, and keeping them in the White House won’t help.

The religious right has gradually taken over the party at the local level since the 80s, and you’ll have to do the same if you want to swing it back to Goldwater conservatism.

rusty

Tim, one has to consider the term ‘community’. The GLBT community is very diverse. Male Female, Feminine-Masculine, Gender Variance, Trans Folk. . .Married, Single, Every race, Every religion, so. . . you are asking for countenance from members of this group to support people who support people (and political groups) that work to eliminate and/or withhold the rights, liberties and livelihoods of the GLBT community. Building cohesive bonds in the GLBT community has been challenging but it continues to move forward. There are those who admire the work of the GLBT community’s response to HIV and AIDS in the early days.
In regards to the political realm, there are folk on the left, on the right and those in the middle, and I agree with you that demonizing and segregating ourselves is counterproductive and mean-spirited. But, there are some who want gay marriage, and for others gay marriage isn’t a concern. Others are concerned about health care issues, and some are concerned about fair employment practices–Just like the greater American community, it will be difficult to come to consensus on all issues. According to the latest report, The GOP is still keeping its opposition to same-sex marriage a priority in the planks for 2008 GOP convention.
‘In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.’ MLK and to continue. . . ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’

Priya Lynn

I’m not clear on which posts are off-topic.

David

Wat an incredible load of drivel this topic has generated — as I expected.

The reason for the political intolerance of the gay community isn’t its gayness. It is its devotion to left-wing politics.

Lefties always think of themselves as god’s greatest gift to the universe. To tolerate opposition to themselves is, for them, to tolerate pure, unthinking evil.

This explains the two-faced reaction to Messrs. Crutchley and Colichman. It also explains all the ‘we Democrat-supporting homosexuals are intellectually and morally superior to gay Republicans’ claptrap in the comments here.

Timothy Kincaid

AJD,

You appear misinformed about McCain and the OCA and their relationship. Please review this article before discussing the subject further.

Praya Lynn,

The topic is whether there is tolerance within the community for those who may not vote for Barack Obama.

Those comments that wish to argue why they prefer the candidate of their choice are not on topic… though some of them do seem to provide illustration for the theme of the post.

MR Bill

[Editor – Timothy] Comment removed. Off topic.

Priya Lynn

Timothy, I’d say that we can barely tolerate those who don’t vote for Obama

Swampfox

Timothy, I guess the answer is that there is a very large segment of the our gay community that is overwhelmingly Democratic. Do you know anyone who has a record of the openly gay and lesbians that the Bush administration has appointed to office? Even as a gay Republican, I have to confess that Bush should have done more.

AJD

Okay, I’ll admit I was wrong about his speaking before the OCA, but his support of marriage amendments still positions him against our community, so I stand by my overall position that it’s foolish for any gay person desiring to further the interests of our community to support McCain.

AJD: “so I stand by my overall position that itâ€™s foolish for any gay person desiring to further the interests of our community to support McCain.”

That’s exactly how I feel about downgrading the importance of national defense and nominating a candidate who isn’t ready to be CiC. The part that is overlooked here, probably by both ‘sides’, is that many gay conservatives support gay rights just like many gay liberals support national defense. We approach each issue very differently of course and may question the others’ commitment, but in the end I think this is right. The problems come in as far as prioritization. Neither party is giving any us all what we want which is why we are split. Defense is my priority over everything else and I presume gay rights is yours. I want DADT repealed, ENDA enacted, DOMA reformed or repealed, etc. just as much as you do, but not at the expense of national security. When we have a candidate of either party who is acceptable on both counts then I believe we’ll see more unity among gays.

Timothy Kincaid

Swampfox,

I am not aware of a listing of gay appointments by President Bush. I do know offhand that Michael Guest was appointed as ambassador to Romania during the first term.

Priya Lynn

John said ” I want DADT repealed, ENDA enacted, DOMA reformed or repealed, etc. just as much as you do”.

Clearly not, or you you’d be supporting Obama as well.

rusty

Again, in regard to intolerance within our GLBT community it is necessary to understand the complexity of the entire makeup of the community. With some personal work in Inter-cultural (or Cross Cultural) competence, I am striving to attain the ability of successful communication with people of other cultures; this ability can exist in someone at a young age, or may be developed and improved. The bases for a successful intercultural communication are emotional competence, together with intercultural sensitivity.

A person who is interculturally competent captures and understands, in interaction with people from other cultures, their specific concepts in perception, thinking, feeling and acting. Earlier experiences are considered, free from prejudices; there is an interest and motivation to continue learning.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercultural_competence.

During social change ie., the women’s suffrage movement, the civil right’s movement, etc., there was conflict within each movement. Some said ‘you’re asking for too much’ while others said ‘we will not settle for anything less’. Women still fight the glass ceiling, people of color still face discrimination.

In our GLBT community (a very diverse group of cultures), some folk have easily slid into the mainstream, make the necessary adaptations and even make concessions to fit in. Other folk face (or faced) humilation, discrimination, ostracization, oppression. . .thus, Intolerance comes into play.

In order to come to common goals, all members of the GLBT community will have to reach an understanding of each other and the different life paths we all have walked.

Critics of intercultural competence stress that it is important that intercultural competence training and skills not break down into application of stereotypes of a group of individuals. Although the goal is to promote understanding between groups of individuals that, as a whole, think somewhat differently, it may fail to recognize the specific differences between individuals of any given group. These differences can often be larger than the differences between groups, especially with heterogeneous populations and value systems (such as found in the USA.) *

Looking at the develeopmental stage of the GLBT community, for it is undergoing change very quickly, it is still fragile and from a sociological aspect, very young. It will take some time for it to mature and move away from the infighting and intolerance that exists within while it fights its battles out there.

banshiii

exactly.
I made this point over at the Blend regarding the manhunt man.
Freaks me out people don’t get it.

AJD

John wrote:

“I want DADT repealed, ENDA enacted, DOMA reformed or repealed, etc. just as much as you do, but not at the expense of national security.”

Apparently, the gay-rights issues you mentioned are a VERY distant second in order of importance to you, because they’ll certainly suffer further setbacks under a McCain presidency.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a guy back in 2002. He was gay and had voted for Bush in 2000, his reasoning being that Bush was “very pro-gay.” I can’t help wondering what he must have thought on a certain November night two years later.

At the risk of diverging from the topic, McCain’s idea of promoting national security is to bomb yet another suspiciously oil-rich Middle Eastern country to the tune of “Barbara Ann” (singing about dropping bombs on people doesn’t make you a national security or foreign policy expert; it makes you a psychopath). He also wants to keep us in the neighboring country that we pre-emptively invaded and whose sovereign, internationally recognized government we overthrew and replaced with a puppet government on account of phantom WMDs and connections between the previous government and al-Qaeda and, later, to promote democracy (when those WMDs and al-Qaeda links turned out to be non-existent).

As someone who lived in a foreign country for three years and interacted with non-Americans on a daily basis, I think I have sufficient expertise to say that McCain, who basically wants to continue Bush’s policies, will do nothing but anger the rest of the planet and turn even more people against us than Bush already has. We’re not going to promote national security by making even more people resent us. The arrogance that Bush and previous administrations (including Clinton) have displayed abroad is the reason why so many people hate us and want to kill us in the first place.

David

“Are Gays Politically Intolerant?”

No. However, GLBTQ people are often highly critical of politicians, and many are politically aware, educated and assertive.

It would be intolerance if GLBTQ bars and businesses refused to serve LCR’s. It would be intolerant if GLBTQ organizations, including MCC’s, refused to allow LCR’s to participate.

It is not “political intolerance” when a customer choses to stop doing business with a company because that company, directly or indirectly, diverts some of customer’s money to political organizations the customer does not approve of. The customer always has the right to decide whether or not to give his or her money to a vendor. The implication that GLBTQ people should be expected or coerced through peer pressure into supporting businesses, or businesspersons, which support candidates that are openly hostile to the civil rights of GLBTQ people, is oppressive and demeaning.

I think it was very naive of Crutchley to donate to McCain, when his source of income comes from the wallets of gay men. It was not honest of Kirchick to construe consumer non-participation as some form of prejudice, nor was it honest for Kirchick to leave out the fact that McCain returned Crutchley’s donation. I think the generalizations in the article here, as well as though in Kirchick’s Op-Ed, are erroneous and dismissive at best.

Ron

â€œAre Gays Politically Intolerant?â€

This is a rhetorical question. Gay men, meaning men who are deeply devoted to gay culture, are some of the most hateful, vicious, and intolerant myrmidons on the planet. Their behavior has completely destroyed the idea of a “GLBT community” as far as I’m concerned.

“This is a rhetorical question. Gay men, meaning men who are deeply devoted to gay culture, are some of the most hateful, vicious, and intolerant myrmidons on the planet. Their behavior has completely destroyed the idea of a â€œGLBT communityâ€ as far as Iâ€™m concerned.”

You know nothing about me.

You can take your dismissive and hateful stereotyping elsewhere, it has no place in civil discourse.

Ron

Jason D wrote:

“You can take your dismissive and hateful stereotyping elsewhere, it has no place in civil discourse.”

Whether or not political gays have done a great job at insulting other gays out of the unicorn-like “GLBT community” is a *very* worthwhile discussion to have.

P.S. It isn’t a stereotype. It’s called “gay culture” — and that culture is flavor-aid-drinkingly leftist and extremely hateful and intolerant toward anyone who dares stray one tiny bit from strict mind-control.

Timothy Kincaid

Ron,

Your comments indicate and ignorance of the style, content, and participants at this site.

Consider this a warning. We do not tolerate flaming at this site. If you have something to say, do so. But do not include language which is intended to insult or invite a battle of invective.

Ron