From AndrewSullivan.com

MARY CHENEY COMES OUT - AS A REPUBLICAN: In what looks set to be the beginning of a more active political presence, the daughter of the vice-president, Mary Cheney, has just joined the board of the Republican Unity Coalition. The RUC is a new group in the Republican Party, designed to advance the inclusion of openly gay men and women in the party's ranks and leadership. It's spear-headed by Charles Francis, a close gay friend of the president, and a good friend of mine and supporter of this site. According to Charles,
Mary's main focus will be to help the RUC reach out to gay and lesbian voters, as well as build bridges to all within the Republican Party. This summer, she will work with us to build the RUC membership network across the country. Mary's experience, both in her past work at Coors and with the Bush/Cheney campaign, provides the RUC with a whole new level of judgement and political savvy. We are so proud to have Mary Cheney stand with the RUC.
Cheney puts it this way:
RUC is an organization that reflects my fundamental beliefs and principles. Working together we can expand the Republican Party's outreach to non-traditional Republicans; we can make sexual orientation a non-issue for the Republican Party; and we can help achieve equality for all gay and lesbian Americans.
This is splendid news. It seems to me a quite amazing fact - and devastating to the David Brocks of the world who want to keep gays on the Democratic plantation - that the most prominent openly gay member of a first or second family in American history is a Republican. This reflects a simple truth: that gay people come in all shapes and sizes, from all backgrounds and religions, and from every political shade and hue. Rather than be terrified of this, we should welcome it. From all accounts, Cheney is also no believer in traditional gay rights victimology and may, with any luck, begin to give a prominent voice to what many regular, non-activist gay people believe: that we want no special favors, just simple equality; and that the right to marry is a critical and non-negotiable part of that struggle. Welcome, Mary, to the even more difficult part of coming out as who we are: not just that we are gay, but that we are complicated, diverse and often non-leftist in our politics. Now let's see if the religious right and gay left unite in decrying this hopeful sign of changing times.

She needs to go back in!

UGHHHHHHH!!!!!!! CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS LOAD OF ***********

Give me a Break. Being gay is already a non-issue to Repulicans. As most repulicans already view gay people as non-enitities, non deserving of civil liberties and if we could be shipped to some island far, far, far away..... the NRC (not to be confused with the NRA....oh mmmmm maynot) would buy the ship and rationalize it through the consitution, not to mention, probably write the expense off as a public serivce.

Get Real buddy, you're barking up the wrong political pant leg. When will these "gay repulicans" ever learn? It's like little Johnny Goodboy and little Missy Goodgirl still trying to show the teacher how good they are..

It's sooo sad.

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: satxbuddy1 ]

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: satxbuddy1 ]

Yawn. Wasn't Mary Cheney helping her father out during his campaign? Was there any question about her loyalties? Has her mother overcome her inability to admit that Mary is a HOMOSEXUAL? She could take some lessons from PFLAG!

Yes, there are MANY gay Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Communists, Libertarians, Democratic Socialists, you name it. There's no Democratic plantation.

But I'll say this: when more Republicans either 1) cease being moralists and hypocrites and 2) push for pro-gay legislation, then they might get a different look from me. Right now, I cannot support people like John Ashcroft, Jesse Helms, Dana Rohrabacher, Tom DeLay (who recently admitted that he impeached Bill Clinton because he held the "wrong worldview"!!!--is this man a Talib or what???), Trent Lott, Jefferson Sessions, and so forth. They are walking nightmares!

You know what I find sad? Misguided leftwingers who spew so much drivel about how the current administration wants no dissent from its opinions, then go nuclear when other gays dissent from their beliefs. It's yet more proof positive that the gay political elite is spawned from the same church of monolithic thinking that it hypocritically purports to despise.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
She could take some lessons from PFLAG!

---

Sometimes you can't tell the PFLAGers from the Republicans in the first place.
Several years ago I went to the state board of education to testify about the choices of textbooks available. Also there were a large contigent of both PFLAG and Liberty Forum (Phyllis Schlafly's organization) women. I couldn't tell who was with which group until they got up to speak. The PFLAGers looked just like the raving right wing lunatics.

[quote]Originally posted by Munson Man:
leftwingers who ...go nuclear when other gays dissent from their beliefs.

---

This is just an example of the idea that there should be only ONE gay opinion and it has to be Democrat. Thank God there are some Repub. gays to voice an opinion to gay officeholders.

[quote]Get Real buddy, you're barking up the wrong political pant leg. When will these "gay repulicans" ever learn? It's like little Johnny Goodboy and little Missy Goodgirl still trying to show the teacher how good they are..

---

[quote]But I'll say this: when more Republicans either 1) cease being moralists and hypocrites and 2) push for pro-gay legislation, then they might get a different look from me.

---

YAWN! YAWN! YAWN!

I knew this thread would degenerate into another Republican bashing zone. Duh!

[quote]Originally posted by satxbuddy1:
[b]the NRC (not to be confused with the NRA....oh mmmmm maynot) would buy the ship and rationalize it through the consitution, not to mention, probably write the expense off as a public serivce.

---

I might be missing something but what's the NRC? This is probably a dumb question.

I don't see that encouraging gays to vote Republican will ever bring progress in gay rights legislation. Nor will negotiating with the party elite. The reality is that politicians are largely swayed by votes, not what they believe is right or wrong. Aside from the true wackos like DeLay, the Republican strategists aren't anti-gay because they actually give a f*ck about our sexuality, but because they feel they can get more votes by kowtowing to the religious right. As long as a sufficient number of gays and people who support gay rights continue to vote Republican anyway, the Republican party has absolutely no incentive to change. They're afraid of losing votes to Pat Buchanan, or the Christian Coalition voters just not turning out for them.

Slamming gay Republicans isn't about promoting the Democratic party. There are other parties.

But JC, you assume political homogeneity among gays when you just take it as a given that all gays have as their top prioritiy "gay rights issues." Some of us might be equally or even more concerned with issues such as tax relief, Social Security reform, energy policy, protecting the unborn and gun rights, and some of us might support Republican (conservative, to use a dirty word) stands on those issues.

How can anyone who's gay not be primarily concerned with legal equality for gay people? It's the base we've all got to fight for...tax relief is important, the right to choose is important, many issues are important but without basic equal rights, how can a gay person believe that his opinion counts? If we don't receive equal rights, we're still going to be viewed as second class citizens under the law. We can debate and argue and disagree on everything, we are as diverse as the rest of the country, but we must have equal rights.

Mary Cheney may be stepping up to bat, but I'll wait and see before releasing the suspicions I have that she's yet another tool of her father's party.

[quote]Originally posted by Bryan:
How can anyone who's gay not be primarily concerned with legal equality for gay people? It's the base we've all got to fight for...tax relief is important, the right to choose is important, many issues are important but without basic equal rights, how can a gay person believe that his opinion counts? If we don't receive equal rights, we're still going to be viewed as second class citizens under the law. We can debate and argue and disagree on everything, we are as diverse as the rest of the country, but we must have equal rights.

Mary Cheney may be stepping up to bat, but I'll wait and see before releasing the suspicions I have that she's yet another tool of her father's party.

---

But again you're making assumptions. Why do you think all gays support this so-called "right to choose," which is code for supporting abortion? If your talking about choosing something else - where to have dinner, or where to live, something like that - please clarify. Otherwise, the fact remains there are pro-life gays and lesbians.

And your entire argument is premised on the assumption that all gays share your view that we are second-class citizens. I just don't feel that way. I apologize for disagreeing with you, if that makes you feel better, but not every gay and lesbian lives under this siege mentality.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Some of us might be equally or even more concerned with issues such as tax relief, Social Security reform, energy policy, protecting the unborn and gun rights, and some of us might support Republican (conservative, to use a dirty word) stands on those issues.

---

That's certainly your perogative, William1865, and there are many gay Democrats who aren't necessarily in that party because of its stance on gay rights.
However, I remember an episode of The West Wing where a gay Republican Congressman comes to the White House to discuss a particular gay-unfriendly piece of legislation, trying to convince Josh that it is in the President's best interest not to get in the way of the legislation (or perhaps it was gay friendly and he was trying to say it wasn't in the President's best interest to support it, I forget after two seasons). Anyway, there is a long and painful discussion on the bill at the end of which, Josh has been convinced. Josh walks the Congressman out and watches as at least one other, more senior, member of Congress greets the legislator and congratulates him. When the senior member tries to put his arm around the junior member, the junior member shrugs it off with a gut wrenching look of revulsion.
Someone wants to be a Republican because of all the other wonderful things the party has to offer, fine, but then one also has to take responsibility for the ugly downside of the party. Just like a gay member of the Democratic party has to take responsibility for its more outrageous members and actions. If you belong to a major party, you don't just belong to the part of it you like. You belong to the whole thing.

William -- in several states there are anti-sodomy laws on the book; you can be fired from your job or denied housing; you can't adopt children -- and you think we're not second class? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad for you that you that you don't feel discrimination -- but many of our gay and lesbian fellow Americans do.

Second, pro-choice is not necessarily pro-abortion -- just as pro-life -- better labelled as anti-abortion -- isn't necessarily pro-"life" -- I know too many anti-abortionists who favor the death penalty ....

First, The West Wing is about the least persuasive argument anybody can throw at me. I don't care for the show at all and certainly don't think it is interested in showing any balance. Of course a gay Republican on WW is going to be a miserable, self-loathing hypocrite (at least that's what I take the guy to be from your description - your account was a bit hard to follow, with all due respect.)

And of course, since some pro-lifers (if Gray Davis can use this term, so can I) support the death penalty, we're all dirty hypocrites. Thanks, 'preciate that. I for one am ambivalent about the death penalty - it's really big government, but then so is the entire legal system - but there are valid and perfectly justifiable reasons hold both positions. Opposing abortion is an issue of protecting innocent human life, whereas the death penalty is reserved for those who have sacrificed their innocence by taking another life - I suppose if you can show me an unborn child who is guilty of rape or murder we could talk sentencing, but I think there is clearly a difference. (And of course, most pro-choicers don't support giving people the choice to invest part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts, or to choose to send their children to better schools if public education fails them, but that hypocrisy is never mentioned.) But this is not about the ins and outs of abortion or the death penalty but the intolerance of the gay community when faced with political dissent of any stripe.

And this intolerance isn't even a Dem issue necessarily. I'm in Log Cabin Republicans, and most of the people I meet are just knee-jerk liberals. They can't imagine that anybody would disagree with them on anything, and they really don't support any Republican policies. It's very frustrating. Politically, I prefer my straight friends.

There's a fight that happens every year during the anti-abortion rally here in D.C. -- a gay anti-abortion group (yes there is one) always tries to march with the rest of demonstrators, but either get turned away or asked to leave their "Gays for Pro-Life" signs behind.

I can't stand that sort of intolerance either.

I have been told so many times that since I'm gay I have to be a democrat. I call bullshit on that one. I consider myself either an independent or a liberal republican. I didn't vote for Gore because he's a dumbass, not because he was one party or the other, but because he's dumb.

Now the reason that I don't vote democrat is simply because I don't agree with their money control issues. I don't like the idea that once they let people have all the freedoms socially that I would like, they will tax the heck out of me and give me programs to help me once I screw up like they think I will. I call bull crap to more government programs. I say let the people have their own lives and if they screw up, they need to get themselves out of the mess. Don't create a HUGE government to borders on socialism just because you give people Equal rights. A bunch of my friends say that I need to be out campaigning for Gay rights, and that that's why I need to vote democrat is because of the humanitarian issues. Well all I say to that is, social change will not come from a law being passed by a legislature, but they can sure as heck decided to tax me over the course of a single session. Money issues touch to the imediate core of my life, my pocket book. Money issues can change imediately. Social change in this country has to come from the ground up. Until the population is in favor of total equal rights, most elected officals will not go along with protections. We all need to go out on a one on one basis and touch lives everyday and only after people change their views of homosexuality and every other issue will the govenrment step in and change some things. That's just my view, but for all these people to go around claiming that just because I suck some dick that I have to be a Democrat, and then looking horrofied when I say that I don't Identify with that party, I say look at what is important to you, and vote for that issue, not just a blanket vote of, YEP! I'M A DEMOCRATE BECAUSE I'M GAY!, give me a break and start thinking for yourself alread.

Wow, I guess I can step off my soapbox and go to lunch now.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Of course a gay Republican on WW is going to be a miserable, self-loathing hypocrite (at least that's what I take the guy to be from your description - your account was a bit hard to follow, with all due respect.

---

I'm sorry if I was unclear. And no, I don't think the issue was that the Congressman was a miserable, self-loathing hypocrite. I think rather, he was an idealist who was forced by political expediency into a political action that was against his personal best interest. And, as I said at the end of the prior message, the point is that if you're going to be active in party politics (like Mary Cheney, the topic of this thread, is doing) you take the good with the bad.

Clearly there are lots of strong feelings on both sides! The problem, if you can call it that, with our two party system is that neither party perfectly reflects anyone's beliefs on all issues. If you're anti-abortion, pro tax relief, and a strong supporter of the right for same-sex couples to marry, who in hell do you vote for?? I think the point many posters are trying to get across is that while there are MANY good reasons to vote Republican, that party as it's currently composed is not going to advance gay causes one iota--and that really should matter to everyone on this board. Whether it matters enough to change your vote is entirely your opinion, and I respect that.

I hope Mary Cheney and others like her are able to effect some real change in attitudes within the Republican party. I wish her success!

William wrote:

"But JC, you assume political homogeneity among gays when you just take it as a given that all gays have as their top prioritiy "gay rights issues."

I do not assume that. My point was to dispute Cheney's claim (and implicitly yours) that coming out in the Republican party and helping them to outreach to gays and lesbians would in any way further gay rights. It won't. If she wanted to take a stand that would further gay rights, she could take out a TV ad saying "I am a member of the Republican party, and agree with the Republican party on many issues. However, the Republican party has chosen to nominate for president a candidate who supports laws that could cause me to lose my job, my rights as a parent, deny me housing, and even put me in prison for my sexuality. I cannot vote for such a candidate, and am instead voting for the Libertarian party (or some other party, if you prefer) this year and I encourage all republicans who believe in equality for gays and lesbians to do the same." I'll grant you the Libertarians are not anti-abortion, but otherwise they would fit your bill (and are far more anti-big government than the Republicans). In any event, do you really expect George W. will take any concrete steps toward making abortion illegal? Maybe you should have voted for Pat Buchanan.

When the Republican party accepts gays and lesbians as equals it will be because it is politically expedient to do so. When it happens, the Log Cabin Republicans will probably swell with pride and claim the credit, but my opinion is that they actually are inadvertently helping the Republicans to keep pushing a homophobic agenda.

William, do me a favor and actually read postings before you comment in your snide, politely sarcastic way. And please don't apologize falsely for your swipes at other posters's opinions. My posting clearly stated my opinions only.

Legally, gays are still discriminated against all over the country. If you don't understand this, then you're ignorant of what is a reality in many parts of this country. It has nothing to do with a "seige mentality" as you stated. Obviously, the right to choose is in regards to a woman's reproductive health; implying that it could have meant anything else reveals your insincerity and more snideness.

Comparing the execution of a murderer to the abortion of an unborn child is simply ludricrous. Individual circumstances have to be weighed carefully in both situations by well-informed, educated people and lawmakers. There are some circumstances where the death penalty makes sense to me, just as there are many circumstances where abortion is the best choice. I believe a woman has a right to choose based on her specific and sometimes brutal circumstances, and believe it or not, William, that's not "code" for supporting abortion. It may be difficult for you to comprehend the complexity of a woman's reproductive health and specific situation, hence your simplistic, politically oriented opinion. Both the death penalty and abortion rights are complex, emotionally charged issues that demand careful consideration; they're too often used as political fighting tools.

And by the way, I don't believe you have to be a democrat if you're gay. But the Republican party, overall, just hasn't shown me any reason to vote their way again (i voted for Reagan once, pre-AIDS). Sure there are some issues, especially regarding taxes, etc., that make me listen, but mostly it's simply too cold, too cruel, and too big business a party for me. I grew up in a Republican household all my life; I get it. But I'm a gay man who believes that all gay people deserve equal rights under the law.

Gay Americans who vote Republican are, for the most part, placing financial concerns above civil rights. It's your vote, but good luck with that.

It's also amusing to see the pro-life/anti-choice sentiment in the gay community. I'm sure you don't want the religious right to invade your bedroom and tell you who not to have sex with, yet you see nothing wrong with invading the personal life of straight people to tell them whether or not they can choose to be parents. Hello?

Are we off-topic?

[quote]Originally posted by JR in TX:
Gay Americans who vote Republican are, for the most part, placing financial concerns above civil rights. It's your vote, but good luck with that.

---

Sorry, JR, but if you look at the results of a straw poll conducted at LCR's national convention last weekend in DC on issues to prioritize for the next two years, here's what came up from a list of about ten, ranging from easing immigration restrictions on gay partners to gays in the military. The top three issues we chose are: helping to elect gay friendly Republicans, supporting Pres. Bush and ensuring equal rights for our partners, be they termed domestic, life, spousal or otherwise. Tax issues didn't even make it onto the list!

As for anyone who claims that his purported membership in LCR led him to conclude that it's a bunch of knee-jerk liberals, he must have been given directions to an HRC meeting and has yet to be set straight!

Originally posted by JR in TX:
[quote]Gay Americans who vote Republican are, for the most part, placing financial concerns above civil rights.

---

Again, a little fantasy that non-Republican gays just love: that gay Republicans are a bunch of smug, wealthy, white elitists who are so selfishly concerned with guarding their piece of the pie that they don't give a s**t about minutiae like civil rights.

Here in New England, gays had a great friend in Republican governor Bill Weld, who appointed a couple of openly gay men to very high levels of his administration long before it was fashionable to do so. His successor Paul Cellucci was a pretty good guy too. The civil union legislation in Vermont, one of our greatest civil rights victories, was championed by a number of Republicans. And you'll find a lot of very gay-friendly (if not gay themselves) Republican politicians all over New England.

It's not just limited to New England. Rudy Giuliani was a great supporter of gay rights, and President Gerald Ford recently "came out" in support as well. And here's a bit from Rex Wockner's PlanetOut column that I liked:

[quote]When Barney Frank takes his lover Sergio to the White House and George Bush jokes, in Spanish, that he would make a better boyfriend since he could speak Spanish to Sergio, do we really have to keep carrying on about how oppressed we are?

I'm just askin'.

In case you missed it, the White House exchange went like this, according to Barney: "When Sergio and I went to the White House, Sergio said to the president, 'Señor Presidente.' And Bush said to Sergio in Spanish, 'You know I can speak to you in Spanish, and he can't, can he?'"

---

Yeah, yeah, I can hear the wretching now. But I thought it was cute.

Sure, BoSoxRudy, but Weld & Giuliani would be Democrats if they were in any other part of the country. And the Republican party in the '70's was probably as liberal (if not more so) than the Democrats today. Look at the guys Nixon appointed to the supreme court. Or the legislation that was passed during Nixon's tenure. Even Goldwater would be a moderate republican now.

Yes, BoSox, a proof that JC is right about Weld and Giuliani is the defection of Jim Jeffords, Vermont Republican.

[quote]Originally posted by Bryan:
Comparing the execution of a murderer to the abortion of an unborn child is simply ludricrous.

---

Not to beat this issue to death (I'm pro-life!) but I don't believe I made this comparison, or in the sense that I did it was to make the point that there are no similarities. An unborn child and a 40-year-old killer have nothing in common, except for the fact that they are human beings. It is more often than not pro-abortionists who compare the two by dismissing as hypocrites those who support the capital punishment and oppose abortion, as though the two issues are one in the same.

I also apologize to any and all victims of my polite sarcasm. I had no idea I was being polite. In the future I will try to be more rude and bitter.

There are a good number of Republicans who are gay-friendly (although having lived through eight years of Giuliani's "quality of life" initiative I don't know that I'd count him), just as there are a number of democrats who aren't. But when it comes to creating and enacting legislation that matters to the gay community, the Republican party AS A WHOLE is not going to get the job done. It's unfortunate that actions like conventioneers turning their backs and praying when Rep. Kolbe speaks get so much press and attention, but they serve to make a point--politicians have to function within their party. They must stick together on key issues if they hope to get anything accomplished. And the unfortunate fact is that Republicans are not going to come together in support of gay issues when so many of their members are vehemently opposed to them. I'm not trying to pass judgement on anyone's politial affiliation, or pretend that I understand the reason why any individual votes the way he/she does. Gay issues are important to me, and they are uppermost in my mind when I cast my vote. If anyone reading this post--Republican or otherwise--can explain to me how supporting a Republican candidate this fall will improve my life as a gay man, I'm willing to listen.

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX.

[quote]Originally posted by MetsBoy:
It's unfortunate that actions like conventioneers turning their backs and praying when Rep. Kolbe speaks get so much press and attention

---

Yes, the actions of a FEW convention delegates when Rep. Kolbe was speaking at the Republicans ... on trade issues ... was disgraceful and idiotic. But at least Kolbe spoke. Unlike, say, in 1992, when the Democrats would not allow Gov. Robert Casey of Pennsylvania to speak, even though he was governor of a large and important state, and very much a progressive on most issues, simply because Gov. Casey was pro-life.

[quote]Originally posted by MetsBoy:
If anyone reading this post--Republican or otherwise--can explain to me how supporting a Republican candidate this fall will improve my life as a gay man, I'm willing to listen.

---

I don't want to get into the correctness of your position, or of mine, but I will say this: if you derive your entire identity from your sexuality ... if you offer nothing more to the community than your status as a homosexual male ... then there is no reason for you to vote Republican.

If all that you want is gay civil rights legislation, recognition of gay marriage, hate crimes laws for sexual orientation, more funding for AIDS/HIV, and gay adoption rights, then you're right. Vote Dem. Better yet, vote Green (you're welcome, Bill W). But if you are also concerned about fair tax rates, public safety, the war on terrorism, the military, jobs creation, accountable government, fair elections, and/or the sanctity of life (either anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-euthanasia, or all of the above), none of which are part of the "gay agenda," then maybe, perhaps, you'd reach a different conclusion.

But, again, if all you want from an elected official is to "improve" your "life as a gay man," not the life of others, not your life in general, just your existence as a gay man, you've probably already made the correct voting decision.

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

Oh Charlie, get that snotty head out of the trees. Just because the previous poster asked why he as a gay man should vote Republican, you've completely written him off as uninterested in anyone else but himself. That's very sweet of you. Stupid and offensive as well, but i'm sure you wish him the best.

The pursuit of equal rights for gays will continue regardless of folks like you who would like gay people to just sit quietly and not complain (or just go along and pass for "straight-acting). And by the way, it might be a good idea to read a newspaper every once in a while: HIV/AIDS is a global epidemic with far more heterosexual sufferers than homosexual...it's a human issue, and if that's something that only the "gay agenda" should be concerned with, then more power to it...

[quote]Originally posted by JC:
Sure, BoSoxRudy, but Weld & Giuliani would be Democrats if they were in any other part of the country. And the Republican party in the '70's was probably as liberal (if not more so) than the Democrats today. Look at the guys Nixon appointed to the supreme court. Or the legislation that was passed during Nixon's tenure. Even Goldwater would be a moderate republican now.

---

We clearly have very different ways of defining what a Republican is. I'll just comment on Weld's and Jefford's records here, because they're the ones I'm most familiar. If you look at Bill Weld's slashing of the state budget and tax rollbacks, it's **clear** that the man could be nothing but a Republican. Sure, he was quite liberal on social issues, but find me even one Democrat who makes it a policy to eliminate government programs left, right, and center. My very Democratic roommate at the time hated Weld because he cut a number of social programs she felt were very important. Jefford's politics, on the other hand, were never based on a "small government" foundation. Jefford's was right to switch to Independent, not because he was a social liberal, but because he wasn't a fiscal conservative.

For me, Bill Weld (and many other New England Republicans, but you probably wouldn't recognize their names unless you're from here) are proof positive that gay Republicans aren't compromising their social values at the expense of their other political beliefs.

And finally ... sorry, but I don't think there's a political figure who is more Republican than Gerald Ford. Gerald Ford is so unabashedly pro-business that Dems must break out in hives when they get too close.

Charlie, I think maybe I didn't make myself clear. There are many good reasons--you've listed some--to vote Republican, and I'm not trying to judge your or anyone's stand on them. We're all entitled to our own positions, and as you correctly point out if we were merely concerned with a single issue our voting decisions would be easy ones. When I said that gay issues were uppermost in my mind when I vote, I didn't mean to imply that I ignore other issues of relevance to our country. Or to imply that people who vote for a Republican candidate don't care about gay issues. I merely wanted to make the point that the Republican party isn't going to make any great strides on marriage, adoption, HIV/AIDS, etc. anytime soon. [And before I endure another of your attacks, I will point out that the Democrats don't seem to be doing much on those fronts either, although right now they seem more willing to consider them.]

I would think that at times it must be frustrating to be gay and Republican for that reason. I would imagine that it is difficult for someone like Mary Cheney to balance those two things. But I am not her, or you, and don't want to make that assumption without hearing the other side of the story. When I said I was willing to listen, I genuinely meant it. I'd still be interested to hear what you have to say--if you'd be willing to grant that we may have to agree to disagree when all is said and done. And since we don't know one another at all, let's not make it personal, OK?

[quote] Here in New England, gays had a great friend in Republican governor Bill Weld, who appointed a couple of openly gay men to very high levels of his administration long before it was fashionable to do so. His successor Paul Cellucci was a pretty good guy too. The civil union legislation in Vermont, one of our greatest civil rights victories, was championed by a number of Republicans. And you'll find a lot of very gay-friendly (if not gay themselves) Republican politicians all over New England.

---

BoSoxRudy, you're being very disingenuous with this line of argument.

If my memory serves me correctly, Bill Weld was slapped down hard by the leadership of his party. When he was nominated to serve as ambassador to Mexico, the nomination was blocked by Jesse Helms, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a move that was seconded by Trent Lott, who was then Senate majority leader, who did not allow it to come to a vote before the full Senate. Even watching from a distance, it was clear what was going on: this was a warning shot fired at the liberal, northeastern Republicans that they had better tow the line, that the hard-right southerners were in control.
Regarding civil unions, the vast majority of Republicans in Vermont vigorously opposed it from the get-go. When faced with the ruling of the Vermont Supreme Court that state marriage law was discriminatory and would have to be changed, the Republicans in the legislature first moved to amend the constitution to specifically allow the inequality. When this failed, they made opposition to civil unions the centerpiece of their campaign in 2000. Sure, there were some Republicans who supported it, but they were a small minority, and several of them were bounced in the primary. The real hero of this, politically speaking, was Democratic governor Howard Dean. During the 2000 elections, in a state widely regarded as the most liberal in America, conservative Republicans were very nearly swept into power (they took one of the 2 houses in the legislature) on the strength of the backlash against civil unions, a backlash fanned shamelessly by the Republican Party for political gain. From this position they have tried several times since to repeal, or failing that, at least to try to limit the scope, of the civil unions law.
To all you gay Republicans, please don't pick up a turd and try to sell it to me as chocolate.

BoSoxRudy wrote:

"We clearly have very different ways of defining what a Republican is. I'll just comment on Weld's and Jefford's records here, because they're the ones I'm most familiar. If you look at Bill Weld's slashing of the state budget and tax rollbacks, it's **clear** that the man could be nothing but a Republican. Sure, he was quite liberal on social issues, but find me even one Democrat who makes it a policy to eliminate government programs left, right, and center."

I usually determine how Republican a politician is by the length of his horns.

Seriously, though, I think the degree to which a politician cuts or increases spending depends as much on the inherited circumstances as their beliefs. Jean Chretien has slashed Canadian social programs substantially in the last ten years, but he certainly would not be a republican in the U.S. In fact, I doubt any Canadian P.M. in my lifetime would have been a Republican. Would Weld have slashed spending all over if he had been governor of Texas after the "liberal" Ann Richards? If Weld is such a Republican, why did so many of the people who voted for him also obviously vote for Al Gore & Bill Clinton?

I also disagree with the idea that the Republicans are fundamentally " small government". Reagan and now George W. substantially increased government spending, not decreased it. They just spend the money on the military and prisons instead of on education, health and social programs. If you want small government, you should be voting Libertarian not Republican. Nor is it reasonable to dismiss being "socially liberal" as irrelevant to Republicanism--the Republicans have campaigned too heavily nationally on "family values" for those stances to be ignored in defining what a Republican is.

It's one of the fondest fantasies of people living in the big cities of the Northeast that politics there has any relevance on the national scene.

[quote]Again, a little fantasy that non-Republican gays just love: that gay Republicans are a bunch of smug, wealthy, white elitists who are so selfishly concerned with guarding their piece of the pie that they don't give a s**t about minutiae like civil rights.

---

i didn't say you were white

and actually my favorite "non-Republican" fantasy used to involve JFK Jr as a sweaty cable repairman.

[quote]Originally posted by Billy:
[QB]If my memory serves me correctly, Bill Weld was slapped down hard by the leadership of his party. When he was nominated to serve as ambassador to Mexico, the nomination was blocked by Jesse Helms, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a move that was seconded by Trent Lott, who was then Senate majority leader, who did not allow it to come to a vote before the full Senate. Even watching from a distance, it was clear what was going on: this was a warning shot fired at the liberal, northeastern Republicans that they had better tow the line, that the hard-right southerners were in control.
Regarding civil unions, the vast majority of Republicans in Vermont vigorously opposed it from the get-go. When faced with the ruling of the Vermont Supreme Court that state marriage law was discriminatory and would have to be changed, the Republicans in the legislature first moved to amend the constitution to specifically allow the inequality. When this failed, they made opposition to civil unions the centerpiece of their campaign in 2000. Sure, there were some Republicans who supported it, but they were a small minority, and several of them were bounced in the primary. The real hero of this, politically speaking, was Democratic governor Howard Dean. During the 2000 elections, in a state widely regarded as the most liberal in America, conservative Republicans were very nearly swept into power (they took one of the 2 houses in the legislature) on the strength of the backlash against civil unions, a backlash fanned shamelessly by the Republican Party for political gain. From this position they have tried several times since to repeal, or failing that, at least to try to limit the scope, of the civil unions law.
To all you gay Republicans, please don't pick up a turd and try to sell it to me as chocolate.

---

You're missing some key facts on the Weld nomination. For a while there, I saw the scenario the same way you did (conservative Southerner sabotaging the liberal New Englander) until a rather shocking stunt on Weld's part came to light. Bill Weld committed a major-league breach of protocol, a serious diss against Jesse Helms. It was something you just don't do, and it guaranteed the demise of Weld's nomination. Bill Weld didn't always play the game, which is one of the reasons I loved the guy, but mavericks usually have a tough time in politics. Please remember that his successor Paul Cellucci is currently the U.S. ambassador to Canada, in no small part thanks to W.

I read Bay Windows and Innewsweekly (the two Boston-based gay papers) every week, and I'd disagree with you about the exact numbers on Republican opposition to civil unions. True, many opposed, but without that minority of Republican in support, we wouldn't have it today.

re: "small government" ... sorry, but again, I think there is a difference of definitions here. Mine is that the federal government exists for two purposes: national defense and the encouragement of commerce. States and localities take care of the rest, and if at all possible, solutions should be sought in the private sector. God forbid we attempt to solve our problems ourselves instead of sitting around and expecting some government program to do it for us. Back on target ... I completely agreed with Reagan's (and now W's) dramatic increases in defense spending because it was (is) the appropriate measure for the federal government to take. Reagan and Weld both successfully downsized the scope of their governments. One of Reagan's greatest triumphs was a significant shift of responsibilities from the federal level to states and localities, Bill Weld shifted a lot from the state to the local level, and both put a lot into the hands of the private sector. This is one of the many reasons I see both of them as great Republicans.

[quote]It's one of the fondest fantasies of people living in the big cities of the Northeast that politics there has any relevance on the national scene.

---

In the immortal words of the Tip O'Neill (a truly great Democrat) ...

"All politics are local."

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: BoSoxRudy ]

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:
If all that you want is gay civil rights legislation, recognition of gay marriage, hate crimes laws for sexual orientation, more funding for AIDS/HIV, and gay adoption rights, then you're right. Vote Dem. Better yet, vote Green (you're welcome, Bill W). But if you are also concerned about fair tax rates, public safety, the war on terrorism, the military, jobs creation, accountable government, fair elections, and/or the sanctity of life (either anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-euthanasia, or all of the above), none of which are part of the "gay agenda," then maybe, perhaps, you'd reach a different conclusion.

---

A different conclusion? Let's see...fair tax rates? Sorry, I prefer that the wealthy pay their fair share too. I guess I'm funny that way. Public safety? I feel safe enough no matter which party is in charge, since fortunately I haven't run into that vicious criminal Willie Horton like the first Bush implied that I would if I didn't vote for him. War on terrorism? You mean the buffoonish Tom Ridge and his color-code? Wow, I feel better already! We're only on yellow alert, whatever the HELL that means. The military? Let's see...should we talk about the 20-plus-year-old "Star Wars" missile defense joke, or that Osprey helicopter that keeps on crashing and crashing and killing people, yet we keep pumping more and more money into it thanks in part to a GOP House rep. from PA who is keeping the money pouring into his district? Jobs creation? The economy was pretty good there...from about 1993 to 2000. Who was the President then, anyway? Accountable government? I'm not sure exactly how that would be achieved, but I doubt it makes a difference which party is in charge. Fair elections? Like the Pennsylvania primary, which was almost pushed back TO MID-JULY by the GOP rulers after their original redistricting plan was declared unconstitutional in court (since they have an unchallenged candidate for governor while two Democrats are locked in a tight race, meaning they'd have to bash each other more and have less time and money for the winner to go after tbe GOP candidate)? Oh, THAT'S fair. The sanctity of life? Please. Those who are concerned about the sanctity of life ought to work harder to make life better FOR THE LIVING instead of trying to have their religious rules made into laws at the expense of those who aren't "true believers."

Oh well...I guess I didn't reach a different conclusion.

Thank you Joe, I'm glad I wasn't the only one annoyed by that posting...

And isn't forty great?

Let's get back to the initial topic of this thread for a moment ... where Mary Cheney "comes out" as a Republican (oh yeah, her daddy's the veep - like anybody's surprised). But the one thing I heard that I really like was "Cheney is also no believer in traditional gay rights victimology ... "

Isn't this what all the Republican-bashing is all about? A lot (far too many, IMHO) gays secretly relish feeling like victims and buy into the cult of victimhood. And one of the great institutions of oppression (amongst many, far too many to count) is the G.O.P. If more gays stopped whining and feeling sorry for themselves, if more gays focused on improving their own lives instead of blaming others for everything that's wrong with the world, then they'd find themselves a helluva lot better off. But doing so would mean letting go of their victimhood, and the tremendous solace of self-pity. Naaaaaaaah, it's a lot easier to blame those evil Republicans for everything that's gone wrong in this country.

I'm convinced that some gays collect stories of Republican misdeeds and mistakes for ammunition, and then let rip a torrent of criticism in any and every political discussion. But I really have to wonder ... if the Republicans were the champions of the gay cause, how many amongst us would be screeching about Ospreys and color codes?

Sorry, but I just can't be a single-issue voter. I'm not so much a Republican as much as a conservative/libertarian (an odd mix to some, but makes perfect sense to me), and whichever candidate's politics (across the board, not just gay issues) make the most sense to me gets my vote. More often than note, it just so happens that that candidate is a Republican. Since coming of voting age, I have voted for Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, and W (oops, wait, I meant to vote for Clinton in 1996 and thought he was clearly superior to Dole, but in a last-second emotional gesture of home-state loyalty, I pulled the lever for my state's Senator of 29 years). Looking back on it now, the only vote I'd switch would probably be Bush for Dukakis. I wonder about switching Mondale for Reagan, but am then reminded about the Alzheimer's (don't mean to be insensitive, but I believe that it started in his 2nd term and negatively affected his presidency).

Stepping off the soapbox, and awaiting the Descent of the Harpies.

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
Isn't this what all the Republican-bashing is all about? A lot (far too many, IMHO) gays secretly relish feeling like victims and buy into the cult of victimhood. And one of the great institutions of oppression (amongst many, far too many to count) is the G.O.P. If more gays stopped whining and feeling sorry for themselves, if more gays focused on improving their own lives instead of blaming others for everything that's wrong with the world, then they'd find themselves a helluva lot better off. But doing so would mean letting go of their victimhood, and the tremendous solace of self-pity. Naaaaaaaah, it's a lot easier to blame those evil Republicans for everything that's gone wrong in this country.

---

I'm tired of any questioning of the status quo being called victimological whining. There are things wrong with our system. Every one agrees on that. We disagree on what some of the problems are, but we agree that there are problems. The only acceptable response to perceived problems is working toward fixing them. Telling yourself that the problems are figments of your imagination doesn't make them go away.

[quote]I'm convinced that some gays collect stories of Republican misdeeds and mistakes for ammunition, and then let rip a torrent of criticism in any and every political discussion. But I really have to wonder ... if the Republicans were the champions of the gay cause, how many amongst us would be screeching about Ospreys and color codes?

---

And Republicans have their own treasure troves of bad behavior, bad judgement and plain stupidity by Democrats. That's the political world for ya.

[quote]Stepping off the soapbox, and awaiting the Descent of the Harpies.

---

Hope this doesn't get me lumped in with the harpies.

jqueer, thank you for your thoughtful and well-reasoned post. No, LOL, yours was not the Harpy response I was fearing.

[quote]I'm tired of any questioning of the status quo being called victimological whining. There are things wrong with our system. Every one agrees on that. We disagree on what some of the problems are, but we agree that there are problems. The only acceptable response to perceived problems is working toward fixing them. Telling yourself that the problems are figments of your imagination doesn't make them go away.

---

Please don't get me wrong! I heartily applaud and support Rosie O'Donnell's fight for gay adoption (something supported by, of all people, Bill O'Reilly ... will wonders never cease), the battle in the Massachusetts legislature for civil unions, and all those out there fighting the good fight. But I think those efforts are a far cry from the simplistic Republican-bashing I hear time and time again. The former are productively taking responsibility for their lives; the latter are conveniently blaming others for everything that's wrong with the world -- very self-gratifying, but not very productive.

[quote]And Republicans have their own treasure troves of bad behavior, bad judgment and plain stupidity by Democrats. That's the political world for ya.

---

I'm not denying that for a second. But my question was: Would you hear anywhere nearly as much gay criticism of Republican misdeeds if Republicans were the Great Champions Of The Gay Cause? No way.

[quote]Originally posted by MetsBoy:
When I said I was willing to listen, I genuinely meant it. I'd still be interested to hear what you have to say--if you'd be willing to grant that we may have to agree to disagree when all is said and done. And since we don't know one another at all, let's not make it personal, OK?

---

I do apologize for stating my comments in the form of a personal attack. Believe me, that wasn't the intent. I was using the rhetorical "you" and I should've realized that you would (logically) interpret it as a personal "you." If I were to do that post over again, I would change the second-person pronouns ("you") to neutral, third person ones ("someone").

I completely agree with much of your second post, MetsBoy. And here's the bottom line that I know we can agree on: If you want a candidate with whom you completely agree on ALL of the issues, then you're going to have to run yourself.

(And even then, given my ambivalence on tough issues like gun control/2nd amendment rights, I'm not sure if I completely agree with MYSELF on all the issues.)

Republican democracy is all about compromise, and we all make compromises whenever we vote for someone, Republican, Democrat or something else. And, finally, I do appreciate the fact that you (and this time I mean YOU personally, MetsBoy, not YOU as a rhetorical device) caught on that I wasn't arguing the correctness of any of my positions on the issues listed, just stating the issues that I personally weigh in my calculation, right or wrong.

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

BoSox - So you approve of Rosie and people like her who are "fighting the good fight," but you don't approve of this vague group of victimized homosexuals who complain about Republicans? Excuse me, what? Aren't we all here trying to make a case for the breadth of opinions and beliefs within both parties? Isn't it detrimental to this country and its unity to continue to try and group ourselves into just two dogmatic parties?

BoSox - Do you honestly have no compassion or experiece with people who have been discriminated against because they're gay? Do I really need to list all the examples? Are these people just whiny victims blaming the Republicans for all the world's troubles. Do you honestly believe that the Republican party is all kindness and light?

I think rampant criticism of both parties might simmer down if everyone would be a little bit less black and white, and more honest about the problems within our system.

And as far as this so-called gay victimology thing that Mary Cheney supposedly doesn't "buy into," I would expect a well-educated, priviledged young woman such as herself to have that view; she's lived a rather unique life. The point is not everyone has had her advantages and protections. I was raised in a somewhat priviledged white surburb and have rarely experienced anything resembling discrimination, but that doesn't mean that I don't understand that it exists and needs to be addressed.

Again, equal rights for gay people is vital. If anyone interprets that as a victim outlook, than they're simply ignorant of reality.

Too bad this thread has deteriorated into another somewhat nasty political thread. All of this simply underscores the desperate need for a strong third party in America. For the record, I have always been a life long Democrat. Of the two parties their record is far, far stronger than the Republican record when it comes to supporting any and all gay causes. It appears to me the only time the Republicans cozy up to anything gay related, is when they need a vote or something. Actions speak louder than words here. What we need to to pass the national anti-discrimination act, which has been stalled forever it seems. Will President Bush see to it that this is pushed through Congress, and finally ratified. I don't think so. Having said this, I still feel if a strong independant candidate were to come along, and consider a run for the White House, I for one would lend an ear. Just my two cents worth.

Bryan, I don't know how I can make myself any more clear. Am I denying that discrimination exists or that gays/lesbians are still being hurt in all sorts of ways by homophobia? Sheesh! Of course not! But what are you going to do about it?

When Rosie went on The Factor, it was an act of tremendous courage. She was scared to death of Bill O'Reilly (something I can understand ... as much as I love the guy, he does have a rather, uh, strong personality), she said she was so worked up and nervous that she literally had diarrhea for two days before the show. But she went on, faced The Devil Himself, and very eloquently stated her case for gay adoption. And oh my God! whaddya know? I don't know if you can give Rosie sole credit, but the next week Bill O'Reilly stated that he favors and supports gay adoption! Will wonders never cease?!?!

But note what Rosie hasn't done in her fight for gay adoption: she doesn't bash Republicans or right-wingers. In fact, she admitted that her attitudes changed significantly post-9/11, that she can no longer see Republicans as wrong or evil just because they're Republicans.

In an interview with one of the leaders of the gay marriage movement in Holland, this leading advocate (sorry, forget his name) said that the key to success was talking to people. He said that when you first bring it up, people look at you like you're crazy. But you persist and talk about it again. They're still resistant, but then you talk to them again. And you talk to them and keep talking, and after a while what you're saying actually makes sense to them. That's how they instituted gay marriage in the Netherlands, not by demonizing the opposition nor by screeching about how awful things are for gays.

To me, fighting the good fight doesn't mean vilifying your opposition, but winning them over, or at least enough of them over to achieve your goal. That's productive; that's progress. I just don't see what you accomplish by bashing Republicans. Sure, it feels good, but in the end, what good have you done?

In my personal life, I can't even begin to count how many times I've been pleasantly surprised by how people I expected to be homophobic but weren't, or people who were homphobic initially but turned around. I've met so many backwater rednecks, born-again Christians, die-hard conservatives, overprivileged Republicans and others who I never expected (unfairly, I'll admit) to be open and accepting of gays, but turned out to have absolutely no problem with it and very supportive of gay rights.

I'm sure many of us out there have stories of friends/acquaintances who were very homophobic at first, but we didn't give up on them, and now they're all the way on the other end of the spectrum. I'll just tell one of my stories: a roommate and good friend (super-Catholic) freaked out so much when I told him I was gay that he moved out for a while -- but not before blasting me with a few fire & brimstone, violating-the-laws-of-nature speeches, of course. Sure, it hurt like hell, but I kept talking to the guy. At least he calmed down enough to move back in. After a few months, we once again started interacting normally. Years later, I was an usher at his wedding, and he's still one of my closest friends. He's Spanish and definitely has that Spanish uber-machismo, but God help you if you say something anti-gay around the guy nowadays.

So what do you propose, Bryan? That we demonize and vilify those who oppose and somehow that'll get us what we want? Well then, I guess you got your way and I got mine.

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
To me, fighting the good fight doesn't mean vilifying your opposition, but winning them over, or at least enough of them over to achieve your goal. That's productive; that's progress.

---

I hadn't thought about issues in quite this manner, but when you put it this way, it makes a great deal of sense.
Unfortunately, I've always had more fun fighting the bad fight.

Very nicely said, Bo Sox Rudy!

After a recent campaign speech, I was urged by several members in the audience to attack Jesse Helms. While I freely admit that Helms is no friend to gays, what is to be gained from attacking him? I refused to do so. I and the rest of the world are moving on beyond him, and soon without him. I wish he weren't so closed minded, but I won't waste time attacking him when there's so much else to be done. Instead, I wish him well, in this world and beyond. We'll take care of the work he wouldn't let us finish while he was here. And we'll have no cause to regret being spiteful when we look back and reflect on how we accomplished what we did.