Log Cabin Republican Blog
Dan Weintraub made mention recently of a the new blog the California Log Cabin Republicans put up. The Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) are a gay republican group. Looks like some interesting issues discussion although not many comments being made on the blog, so far. I've added their site to my blogs list to keep up with what's going on there.
I've never understood why the gays would want to be affiliated with Republicans after they've been slapped in the face so many times by them. It's certainly good to see some in the gay community supporting less government and more individual liberty, as they say on the California LCR website, but I think it would be a stretch to say that's what Republicans stand for now, at least on the national level. I wonder why more of the homo community isn't with the Libertarian Party as I would think most gays would be natural libertarians, believing in live and let live.
Maybe the LCRs just want to be with a "side that has a chance of winning"? Or it could be that the LCR folks are pretty much "conservatives" that believe in the drug war and a few other issues that separate libertarians from conservatives. Probably a little of both. Wonder how many members the LCRs can claim?
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:40 AM
12 comments
12 Comments:
>I've never understood why the gays would want to be affiliated with Republicans after they've been slapped in the face so many times by them.<
I know the homos have for some time been pushing hard for victim status, but what specific "slaps" have they received by the Republican party as opposed to individuals speaking only for themselves?
>...I would think most gays would be natural libertarians, believing in live and let live.>
Not those of a militant, in your face stripe who are demanding victim status and the implementation of hate (thought) crimes. The highly militant homos will always gravitate to the Left, definitely not a "live and let live" philosophy.
MOLON LABE
Yeah, those crazy leftist homos. They want the same rights as us heteros. Damn them and their civil rights agenda! Where'd they come from, the 1960s? Love it or leave it. Heil George!
Fred,
I see your blog and its comments are causing the usual bottom dwellers to emerge from under the rocks (Arcata?:o).
Yes, silly me, I believe in equal rights. Fred, I see your blog and its comments are causing the usual white sheets to emerge from their bigoted lair.
Well, Alan, as far as slaps in the face, I'd consider Bob Dole returning money donated to his campaign by the Log Cabin Republicans one such slap in the face. That's one that comes to mind and I'm sure I could come up with more examples if you gave me time. One could argue that was a decision made by an individual, Bob Dole, but we all know those decisions aren't often made by a candidate but by advisors and staff.
But I agree the majority of the gay/ lez community hangs on the left, many the far left. Nonetheless, it doesn't make sense to close doors.
I'm on at least a couple gay/ lez e-mail lists and occasionaly post items of mutual interest to the lists. I even managed to get an invite to have an LP table at last year's Gay Pride event in Arcata from one of the organizers. I suspect that was a direct result of having at least some common interest that I exhibited by being on their list and posting to it.
That was the local LGBT (or is it GLBT?) Yahoo Group, to which I still belong. I'll admit, though, to leaving another statewide homo Yahoo Group that had a fair amount of political discussion. That was before the last presidential election and I tried, in vain, to generate some interest in third party voting, specifically for Mike Badnarik.
That was a lost cause. I wouldn't say the comments I received amounted to being hostile, but I gave up the effort and eventually left the group since the vast majority of the members, or at least those who were posting to the group were committed to the Democrats and John Kerry no matter what argument you made.
But there are some other issues I differ on with many gay/ lez folks. Someone used to post stuff to the Humboldt homo list from some group, the name of which escapes me but it had to do with transgendered people, or some such.
The emphasis of most of their announcements was along the lines of anti discrimination, one law they wanted to pass having to do with protection from being fired because a male employee wore female clothes, or whatever they were arguing. I think an employer has a right to set whatever appearance standards he wants, whether it involves sex, or not. I didn't post my opinion on the list after reading that group's announcements. I try to emphasize common interest, not disagreements.
I am a strong supporter of gay marriage, though. That's an overly simplistic way of saying it. Maybe I'll take time to explain my position on it here today, or a few days from now. I've had at least a couple LPers compliment my synopsis of the issue of gay marriage in the past, although I'll admit to seeing a few similar views expressed in various opinion outlets since I came up with mine.
They must have heard from me, via the grapevine, huh?
I'm not sure, Anon, but Alan may not be referring to gay marriage. Are you?
I think he's referring to hate crime laws and other anti discrimination laws that the gay/ lez/ left community supports or proposes. I might well agree with him in regards to that.
I'm not specifically referring to gay marriage, no. Just the same rights across the board that I, as a heterosexual non-Arcata resident, enjoy. It sickens me to think there are people like leonidas (Alan?) in this county. I presume you harbor some ill will toward gays and lesbians too, given your proclivity for calling them "homos," an abbreviation of a clinical term that is usually derogatory in other usage.
Wow!
This is getting interesting. It sounds as if anonymous fails to understand the meaning of "civil" rights. If he/she is referring to the special treatment of whatever group screams the loudest in order to secure preferential consideration by the law, then he/she can definitely include leonidas in opposition.
On the other hand, if the historical usage of "civil" rights is to prevail (e.g. those rights shared by ALL citizens) leonidas would qualify as a supporter. Maybe anonymous can help us out here but leonidas is unaware of any present civil right denied any individual by virtue of membership in the "gay/homosexual etc. community". (Does that non pejorative designation pass the political correctness test for this week?) And let's not get into the "gay marriage" mine field. Leonidas doesn't favor seeking the government's blessing for what is essentially a personal and cultural relationship.
The sexual/recreational preferences of other people is of no concern to leonidas so long as they injure no one else. When adherents to one or another activity obtain special privileges or status by virtue of membership in a "victim" group, "equal protection" under the law no longer exists.
I was not aware of Dole's slap at the LCRs. We know of course how that turned out :o)
Sorry about anonymous' sickened condition. His/her debating technique is however the standard leftist tactic: "heil, white sheet" etc.
Oh, by the way;
MOLON LABE
Not at all, anon. I regularly use the term homo(s), even when posting to gay e-mail lists. While I use gay, as well, I prefer "homo" over "gay". Don't know why. I suppose "gay" just seems like something somebody made up, or, maybe...it just sounds gay?
:-)
God, your hatred of gays and the bogus "special rights" crap makes me sick. I'm outta here. Fred, enjoy your friend. He's a real peach. And Fred, you're kind of fuzzy yourself.
"anon" seems like an asshole.
Some people just have a hard time with others who aren't quite politically correct enough for them.
Post a Comment
<< Home