posted by gmginsfo:

Well, if you've been out for a long time, and studied any of the history of the gay rights movement, you would know that there has never been a monolithic leadership of the movement - there has always been a tension between the "conservative" and "liberal" wings. Whether it was the early Mattachine members who voted to expel all the former Communists from the organization, to the "Gay Libbers" in the 70s who rejected the assimilasionist arguments and deferential attitudes of the early gay rights pioneers, to the ACTUP movement of the 80s and 90s, to today, when many gay people believe we have gone "too far" with the gay marriage arguments.

As you may know from my previous postings, I was not a fan of the LCR under its previous leadership. But I believe Patrick Guerriero has brought new life and blood to the organization, and has finally made it a force to be reckoned with as the years go on.

I also happen to believe that the tension between liberal and conservative voices in this country, if moderated by those in the middle, can be a force for good, whether we are talking about taxation or gay rights legislation. What will always hurt this country, and any movement within it, is the belief that only one side has all the answers and the methods to achieve success. That is the main problem with our current administration, and the main criticism I have of your post.

DF & CPT, Your posts don't differ with my views and my post was not directed at either of you, or anyone else who refrains from shrill and speculative name-calling. I've said time and again that "there is no one way to be gay" or one way to gain our rights.

Consider, though, as I think one of you did in an earlier, unrelated post dealing with election fraud, that a lot of this is in the eye of the beholder. This board, and many others, provide solid evidence of the grief LCR has endured from self-appointed Demo-left gay leaders who refuse to acknowledge both their infallibility and that others just might have some good ideas worth exploring outside the borders of the Democratic party.

But back to thus thread's alter-ego: here's Robert Novak's take on Mary.

Interesting that Novak can charge the Kerry camp with "Meanness".

Did he not watch the meanest convention ever last month?


Look whether it was calculated or a slip, both sides have been guilty of this stuff. At least Kerry believes we are born gay, the President "Doesn't know", honest? (perhaps) but he didn't offer his opinion on it either.

I guess I hit a nerve. Oops. I haven't heard such a stern lecture from a rabid football coach in years. It's like living in the suburbs with my father or watching a sitcom. Let me get those punitive pushups out of the way now.

The only crying I see or hear is the disingenuous, chronically arrogant tears of republicans over the "meanness" of John Kerry's honest description of what being gay is all about. This is the same party that allowed Kenneth Starr to spend $70 million of the taxpayers' money to impeach Bill Clinton. This is the party who kicks gays out of the army, kicks gay, arabic, translators out when they're needed most. While admittedly, the Republican Party knows "meanness" far better than anyone else; they're wrong (something else they know well) about this one.
But I have just now realized how low Lynne Cheney has now gone with her comments. She's called John Kerry a "bad man." Well at least John Kerry has the balls to talk about 'both' his daughters.

I had read about Lynne's comments after the last debate, but over the weekend while listing to Sirius OutQ radio I actually heard the sound bite, and all I could think after actually hearing it was "f**k you, you f**king hypocrite bitch."

Spare us felon-abetting Novak, please.

Look, the truth of the matter is, some things can be viewed in a way that approximates objectivity (though, as science since Schroedinger has shown, the viewpoint of the observer must always be taken into account.) Such is the case with voter fraud, or the situation with the flu virus (I specifically noted that were Gore president we'd probably be facing the same problem), and so on.

Now, I don't believe, and have said repeatedly, that not all Republicans are "bad" people, to use Lynne Cheney's idiotically reductive and Manichean term. That dizzy bitch, a supposed historian, knows better. Maybe others don't, but she does. Nor do I demonize all gay Republicans. Obviously, there are some gay GOPers who are willing to stand up to those who would oppress us, deny us our rights, humiliate us, whether those oppressors come from the Nazi or Christian right or, as in the case of Cuba and Soviet Russia, the far left. Patrick Guerriero is one. But the fact remains that there are far too many homo Republicans who are abetting the very people who would not blink if we were exterminated. Yes, I said it. The creeps who supported the anti-sodomy laws, who support those fanatical Christians, who support the politicians and the RNC, which is pushing FMA--*those* gay Republicans, some of them closeted, deserve to be called out. The same would be true of homos on the far left, like my cousin, who try to explain away or deny Castro's camps for "counter-revolutionaries" (homosexuals), or his policies quarantining people with AIDS. Both I condemn with the utmost vigor.

At the same time, it's nonsensical not to be incapable of admitting one is wrong OR of taking responsibility for actions which are detrimental to the welfare of your fellow human beings, and ultimately yourself. Tearing up voters' registration forms is anti-democratic. Wrongly listing people as felons, WHEN YOU KNOW THE PROCESS IS FLAWED and WILL DENY PEOPLE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, is anti-democratic. Posting policeman only in precincts where only one group is going to vote, or trying to move polling places at the last minute, is anti-democratic. Now if the Democratic Party has engaged in such activities, they deserve to be condemned. But the fact is, the Republican Party and its proxies are doing these things. If you cannot condemn or at least admit that these are anti-democratic and dangerous actions, then I really don't know what more to say. Why not just wave a flag for Putin or Mugabe--or whoever is ruling Uzbekistan--and call it a day?

I guess this would be the wrong time or place to speak of Kant's theory of conduct, but Lord knows, we could use a bit of it in American politics!

That's interesting, I hadnt noticed any other means.

Interesting column in the Washington Post this morning (in the Style section of all places) in which writer Hank Stuever points out \"What Everybody Doesn't Know About Mary Cheney\"....the most relevant quotes in the story in my opinion are the excerpts from Andrew Sullivan's blog this past weekend, where he wrote:

"The Cheney's didn't respond to Alan Keyes' direct insult of their own daughter in Illinois. They have not voiced objections to a single right-wing piece of homophobia in this campaign. But they are OUTRAGED that Kerry mentioned the simple fact of their daughter's openly gay identity. What complete B.S. The GOP is run, in part, by gay men and women, its families are full of gay people, and yet it is institutionally opposed to even the most basic protections for gay couples. You can keep up a policy based on rank hypocrisy for only so long. And then it tumbles like a house of cards. Kerry just pulled one card from out of the bottom of the heap. Watch the edifice of double standards slowly implode. Gay people and their supporters will no longer acquiesce in this charade. Why on earth should we?"

~Joe

EXACTLY! And when it does fall, the Log Cabin will be standing to pick up the pieces and put them back in their original order!

I do think voter fraud is perpetrated by both parties. In one recent election here in Alabama, there was one county that had more eligible voters than there were people in the county-and this was in a majority minority county that votes 80-90% for the Dems.

Even though it did happen in Alabama, does not mean you can totally disregard it.

The last several elections i have read articles of union members and minorities being paid cash or gifts to vote. That is just as illegal as voter intimidation.

....and right after that happens, Santa, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy will swoop down and take gmg to a happy place, far, far away.

The End

Posted by RazorbackTX:
So what is your solution Raze? Do you really think that somehow the Democrats are going to defeat the GOP permanently and destroy the party? I personally don't think we will ever see a form of one-party rule in this country, and I think there are two many on both sides of the aisle who regard politics as a winner-take-all fight to the death - much to the detriment of the country.

I truly believe that, given the attitudes of younger people, even the children of evangelicals, in this country, the GOP will have to become more gay-friendly in the coming years, or die a slow death. The only question is which leader will actually have the guts, the $$ and the popular support to defeat the "Christian" Right base and wrest power from them.

As long as the LCR continues its strong attack on the anti-gay politics of the GOP, and makes them even stronger, I do think they can be effective members of a coalition to bring back "Rockefeller Republicans" if you will.

That's funny...lol