Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Log Cabin’s realistic (and non-touting) response to the Republican platform

Timothy Kincaid

August 22nd, 2012

As predicted, the Republican party platform is wretched.

Stonewall Democrats decided to use the platform as a contrived excuse to attack gay Republicans, asserting that Log Cabin was “touting” their role in the document. Unfortunately Stonewall’s claim was repeated all over the place as though it were accurate.

Here is what Log Cabin actually had to say:

(Tampa, FL) – While Log Cabin Republicans commend the delegates who proposed inclusion of pro-equality language in the 2012 Republican Party platform, the final document is marred by outdated social conservative ideology.

“Tony Perkins may be boasting today about having written an antigay marriage plank into the Republican Party platform, but it will be a hollow and short-lived victory,” said Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper. “The obsessive exclusion of gay couples, including military families, from the rights and responsibilities of marriage, combined with bizarre rhetoric about ‘hate campaigns’ and ‘the homosexual rights agenda’ are clear signs of desperation among social conservatives who know that public opinion is rapidly turning in favor of equality. Unfortunately, what voters can’t see in this document is the significant debate within the Committee. We were pleased to see vigorous debate on amendments in support of civil unions and to delete language regarding DOMA. While these measures failed, the future direction of our party clearly trends toward inclusion. This may well be the last time a platform will cater to the likes of the Family Research Council on marriage, and the fact is, platforms rarely influence policy. Tony will never see his discrimination written into the United States Constitution.”

Cooper continued, “Together with Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry, Log Cabin Republicans are proud to have encouraged this important debate at the Republican National Convention. Only by being in the room and speaking conservative to conservative will we succeed in building a stronger and more inclusive Republican party.

Despite abysmal marriage rhetoric, in certain places the 2012 Republican platform is an improvement compared to the 2008 document for LGBT Americans. Log Cabin Republicans advocated for the exclusion of any language calling for the return of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ – there is no longer any reference to the supposed ‘incompatibility of homosexuality with military service.’ We are pleased that the 2012 platform’s language on refugees no longer presents a barrier for asylum of LGBT people who are persecuted and threatened with execution in places like Iran. Finally, we appreciate the inclusion of language recognizing that all Americans have the right to be treated with dignity and respect. While there is clearly a long way to go and the language regarding marriage will be harmful to Republicans in November, these changes should not be overlooked.”

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

tim
August 22nd, 2012 | LINK

My few experiences with the Stonewall Democrats have never been positive. I always looked at the LCR (at least at the national level) as moderates. Stonewall Democrats always struck me as extreme left wing and it doesn’t surprise me at all – that instead of focusing on equal rights for all – they take partisan potshots at gay Republicans.

SharonB
August 22nd, 2012 | LINK

The log cabins have been tossed a rotten potato and think that it means the republicans really love them. They are delusional. The platform of the republican party was written by a hate group. They will lock up the hate vote with this. I have disagreements with the democratic party, but they get my vote. I will never cast a vote for the hater party. I applaud the log cabins for working for change, but their optimism is unwarranted at this point. For crying out loud! The hate group that wrote the relevant portion of the republican platform is in favor of capital punishment for gays! Wake up!

Ben In Oakland
August 22nd, 2012 | LINK

Oh goody.

They’ve decided to hit us with a 2×4 instead of a 4×4.

Mark F.
August 22nd, 2012 | LINK

Britain’s Conservative Party is now pro-gay marriage. Give the Republicans a few years.

tristram
August 22nd, 2012 | LINK

The test for LCR will be whether they endorse Romney/Ryan.

LCR knows that Romney has signed the NOM pledge and that Ryan is in place as his Christianist keeper – there to make sure he does not flip again. If R/R are elected, and particularly if the GOP takes control of the Senate (getting leadership of the Judiciary and other committees and having the power to set the agenda), the likes of Brian Brown and Tony Perkins will be selecting federal judges, including, most likely, two or more new justices of the Supreme Court.

This will move the federal judiciary to the right for decades to come. And the shift will commence on Election Day – whether we like it or not, the justices are attuned to electoral realities. The equality cases now reaching the SC would all be adversely impacted by a R/R victory.

Steve
August 22nd, 2012 | LINK

And again another anti-gay position that Timothy defends. There appears to be nothing that he can’t find a way to support.

Lord_Byron
August 22nd, 2012 | LINK

Mark F,

There are clear differences between Britain’s Conservative Party and the GOP of the United States. In a way I’d say that many of the GOP policies are more similar to the BNP.

I am not British, but from what I know the Conservative Party holds several positions that would get them labeled as socialists in the United States.

Supporting Universal Healthcare is one thing that in many US conservative regions would make it so they could never be elected. Along with acknowledging the fact that climate change exists.

Blake
August 22nd, 2012 | LINK

I second tristram’s comment. I’d be impressed if the LCR withheld endorsement of Romney in this contest.

I’m not sure how they can justify endorsing Romney without having an answer to this question: If Romney becomes president which Romney are we going to get?

Is it going to be the Romney of this election cycle who muzzled Granell & is promising to champion the Federal Marriage Amendment or is it going to be the inclusive gubernatorial Romney.

David Waite
August 22nd, 2012 | LINK

A writer is at his most pathetic stance when he makes up obvious lies to defend his “side” in a political fight: You state, “Stonewall Democrats decided to use the platform as a contrived excuse to attack gay Republicans, asserting that Log Cabin was “touting” their role in the document. Unfortunately Stonewall’s claim was repeated all over the place as though it were accurate.”

LCR’s Cooper stated, “Together with Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry, Log Cabin Republicans are proud to have encouraged this important debate at the Republican National Convention.”

You say the SDs “contrived” an excuse to attack gay Republicans. Apparently the SDs performed this dastardly deed by quoting the LCRs, and their “claim was repeated all over the place as though it was accurate” because it was an ACCURATE QUOTATION of LCR’s Cooper.

You began this column with a flagrant lie and then were foolish enough to post the refutation of your lie in the LCR press release you spent the rest of this column on. LCR and Cooper boasted of their (failed) input. SDs QUOTED the LCRs and did so in context. You lied about the facts.

TampaZeke
August 22nd, 2012 | LINK

Then Cooper went on to say that the Party Platform doesn’t really mean anything anyway.

Then WHY did he waste his time participating in the consultation and why did he make such a big deal about it if it doesn’t mean anything anyway?

And Cooper DID tout how LCR got the throw away line about respect and dignity for all people and how it was a big step and a nod by the RNC to gay people when in fact it doesn’t mention gay people and was no different than the same throw away line that the RNC has included in their platforms for YEARS and even the hate group, Family Research Council includes in one of their anti-gay manifestos.

Argelius
August 22nd, 2012 | LINK

If a gay person wants to be be a Republican because they believe the GOP’s stance on the economy or fiscal policy trumps the anti-gay stance, fine. Just don’t pretend joining the Log Cabin Republicans somehow makes you pretend they aren’t as vehemently anti-gay as they truly are.

I have little tolerance for the Log Cabin Republicans. In my mind their are either [1] self-loathing homosexuals who are desperately seeking approval by a father/authority figure, or [2] wealthy homosexuals who value their tax rate more than they do their civil liberties.

MsRowena
August 22nd, 2012 | LINK

As someone who came of age in the early 70s, I’d have a hard time looking at _anyone_ associated with the current Democratic Party as extreme leftwing. Have a look back at the 1972 Nixon platform. It was far more to the left in most ways than what the current Democratic platform will likely be. I do have a hard time understanding the whole Log Cabin Republican thing, I admit. It seems a bit like black folks for the Klan or your local N.O.W. chapter rallying in appreciation for the Pope’s respect for American nuns or something, but then we are a diverse community and people don’t have to conform to my views. Except when I tie them down and whip out the pink taser. Kidding! You guys know that’s only on the third date, and long after the U-haul!

Steve
August 22nd, 2012 | LINK

Anyone who thinks the Democrats are in any way left is a fool. It only appears that way because the American political spectrum has shifted extremely far to the right in the last 30-40 years. But objectively, the Democrats are center to center right.

There is no left in America! The Democratic Party is NOT social democratic in the European sense. And there are no socialist or communist parties in America. The Democrats are the equivalent of European moderate conservatives and the Republicans are the same as far right nationalist parties.

Jim Burroway
August 22nd, 2012 | LINK

I’m sorry Timothy, but it looks to me like they were totally touting their role in adding the language to the preamble.

When I wrote what I wrote, I was working off of an RSS feed of what R. Clarke Cooper told BuzzFeed’s Chris Geidner, which did not include the update with the Stonewall Democrats statement. As I read Geidner’s reporting, it certainly looks to me that Cooper was trying to put LCR in front of the platform messaging. That it blew up later when the draft language became available is, well, sad. But I don’t need Stonewall Democrats to recognize it when it happens.

By the way, I’ve never cited Stonewall Democrats for anything in the past either, with the exception of this piece where they pulled their support for a DNC fundraiser in protest of a Justice Department DOMA brief in 2009. Talking about Stonewall Democrats is like writing a piece about a preacher preaching to a choir. Not very interesting or illuminating.

But as for the LRC’s own statement, it’s really sad to see them trying to put lipstick on this thing. I suppose that the fact that the RNC chose not to include DADT, a now defunct policy that two years ago had already lost its popularity even among rank-and-file Republicans, is, literally, progress. But only literally.

Mike
August 22nd, 2012 | LINK

“Tout – to make musch of: promote; talk up.” Merriam Webster Dictionary.

The first paragraph of Cooper’s statement are arguably not a promotion of the platform, but rather serve to refute Tony Perkin’s statements. However the second paragraph does promote LCR’s role in the process and directly claims without their work, the GOP would be even less inclusive than it is. Moreover, the third paragraph completely serves to sell the platform itself on the grounds that the platform is not as completely as anti-gay as it could have been. Overall, I’d say touting is a pretty appropriate term.

Mark F.
August 22nd, 2012 | LINK

To the Log Cabin Club haters: They were instrumental in getting DADT repealed, and they had a big impact getting same sex marriage passed in New York. I have to ask you this question: If Romney is elected, would you prefer that there be no gay Republican group at all? Putting all of your eggs in one basket is foolish.

I don’t condone voting for Romney, but Democrats were falling all over themselves endorsing Bill Clinton in 1996–after he signed DOMA and put DADT into place.

Ned Flaherty
August 22nd, 2012 | LINK

Yes, the Republican platform is truly wretched, but far more wretched is the pathetic sniveling of LCR: “Republican leaders only hate us 95%, not 100%. Yay!”

LCRs are like battered spouses, assuming everything bad done to them must be their fault, and that things will somehow, some day get better, if only…

The dishonest phrasing about treating everyone with “dignity and respect” is rendered meaningless by the other parts of the platform that call for a constitutional amendment to deny LGBT citizens any shred of marital dignity or respect — forever.

Mark
August 22nd, 2012 | LINK

To Mark F.:

The question is whether the LCR will abide by their own standard. In 2004, they declined to endorse Bush because he supported an anti-marriage constitutional amendment–on grounds that, despite their party affiliation, they couldn’t remain committed to their basic principles and endorse a candidate who wanted to enshrine discrimination into the Constitution. In 2012, Romney supports an anti-marriage constitutional amendment and his vice president twice voted for an anti-marriage constitutional amendment in the House.

So will they now turn around and urge gays and lesbians to vote for a candidate signed a pledge to push for an anti-marriage amendment? If so, despite the excellent work they did on DADT, how could anyone take them seriously again?

Timothy Kincaid
August 22nd, 2012 | LINK

In 2008 2004 the decision to withhold endorsement was recorded as part of a documentary.

SharonB
August 23rd, 2012 | LINK

If you think that Elaine Donnelly (who also claims to have had a hand in writing the platform) has given up on repealing DADT, think again! Plenty of anti marriage equality on base, no-social engineering with the military, re-examining personnel policies (ZING!): “We will support an objective and open-minded review of the current administration’s management of military personnel policies and will correct problems with appropriate administrative, legal, or legislative action.”

If you don’t think that is talking about DADT, think again.

octobercountry
August 23rd, 2012 | LINK

Timothy—-seriously??

Blake
August 23rd, 2012 | LINK

I’m confused. I thought the LCR endorsed McCain in 2008. Did they later withdraw their endorsement?

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/09/03/2837

Timothy Kincaid
August 23rd, 2012 | LINK

Blake…

Yes, sorry, they did endorse McCain.

I meant 2004.

Robert
August 23rd, 2012 | LINK

Mark F:

There is a HUGE difference in the support of Clinton in 1996 and the political climate TODAY. In the mid 90’s the two policies were the best we could get. DADT limited the scope of discharge investigations and the process for removal of Military personell who were gay. It was a great step away from the previous policy of investigate, and discharge even if the person was closeted and never spoke about their orientation. And DOMA, even as reprehensible as it was, WAS better than the promise of a Constitutional Ammendment, which could have passed at that time, it allowed States to decide to allow folks to marry, and as such enabled civil unions in New Hampshire, and eventually the marriage rights in the current makeup.

NO, they were not perfect, but they were the best we could get at the time. AND the options left us were even more odious. As it stands if not for Ross Perot, we very well could have had a President Dole if Clinton had not signed those laws.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.