This article is in the current Advocate : I know that many people on this board cannot understand any gay person being a Republican. I think that Patrick Guerriero does a good job of stating his reasons (and mine to a certain extent). I know many won't agree but I do try to have reasonable discussions and try to respect everyone's point of view so here goes :
|| my perspective ||
American evolution
By Patrick Guerriero
From The Advocate, June 24, 2003

As a gay person, I feel fortunate to have been elected five times to public office. Being a Republican, I get criticized by both the far left and the radical right. Hate-spewing minister Fred Phelps called me a “faggot…worthy of the death penalty.” But such comments don’t come just from the Right. A Democrat in Los Angeles dubbed me “just another self-hating faggot” in his E-mail and wrote, “You and people like you are the worst enemies of the gay community.”

Continued: Advocate online

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

We reiterate: Keep quotations brief. When quoting a lengthy article from an external source, quote only a brief passage, with a link to the original document. - Outsports moderator

[ June 12, 2003, 07:51 AM: Message edited by: m1 ]

Copman, Thank you for sharing, I can not find fault with the thought of changing from within. But what I do not understand, and hope you can enlighten me on, is why you are a republican? What policies, ideas core beliefs do you share?

I am not strict Repub. = I actually support candidates of both parties but I generally am conservative in law & order issues , abortion , strict judges - things like that - and generally Repubs. speak to my sense of carrying your own weight & being responsible for your own actions instead of putting the blame on society when an individual screws up his own life through laziness or crime. But when I find a person of either party I agree with I will & do support his campaign. (Generally that is more repubs than Dems but I have supported both.) There are of course things that the Repubs do that I am not totally happy with -like Santorum- Like the pentagon picnic - and when they are wrong we LCR-type people need to speak up.

Okay, Copman, I see where you and Guerrero are coming from. I could never be part of the contemporary Republican Party as it's nationally constituted, but I would support some Republicans depending on their stands. So before you automatically assume that all progressives hate Republicans OR think all gay men who support the GOP are self-hating, I urge you to think again. I also urge you to speak out against hate when it issues from the mouths of GOP folks, like Delay, Lott, and the rest. Were those people not in leadership roles, I still might not support it regularly, but I'd feel a lot better about it as an opposition party.

It is interesting that Guerrero says almost nothing about his beliefs and how they dovetail with what the GOP either in Massachusetts or nationally stand for. I also agree that working within organizations can be useful, but protest is truly important as well. Had it not been for the Civil Rights activists of the 1950s and 1960s, or the pre-Stonewall activists and the specific heroes of 1969, or even the ACT-UP activists of the 1980s, advances might have come much more slowly. I know with regard to Civil and equal rights for African-Americans than people tried very hard to work within both parties for many years, but it wasn't until activists were jailed, boycotted, beaten, killed, and degraded before the eyes of the world that things changed. Those courageous people were not handed anything; they had to battle for it, with their blood, sweat and tears.

But this is the case throughout history. Look at our own nation. The USA did not become independent through working within the British parliamentary system; sometimes it takes a revolution.

[ June 11, 2003, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Copman, Thank you for your post. I see where you are coming from, and it ( your reply) will help give me insight into your future posts.
I do not intend to debate your reply, because you stated that you will vote for either party, and that is a position everybody should be able to live with. Take care

I actually admire those gay Republicans who are trying to change the party. I may not have much hope for their short-term success, but I do appreciate their attempts to get a lot of people who either actively hate gays, or those who want to live in a kind of permanent "you're okay as long as you don't ever talk about being gay, involve your partner officially in your lives, or ever force us to examine our own bigotry" to focus on us and admit we exist, are human and deserve rights.

My problem with the LCR, in particular, is their attempt to spin so many anti-gay actions on the part of Republicans as pro-gay. The LCR is supportive of the Bush record on gays, even though he has admittedly done nothing. I guess I don't want to have to settle for a "good thing" being merely the maintenance of the status quo.

I have a hard time equating "family" and the GOP when it comes to Gay acceptance. I'm glad his family "changed" in order to accept their own flesh and blood. Blood (usually) is thicker than water, but not all families accept their gay relatives and hence, not all parties will accept gays.

We reiterate: Keep quotations brief. When quoting a lengthy article from an external source, quote only a brief passage, with a link to the original document. - Outsports moderator [/QB][/QUOTE]
SORRY ...I should know better...

Handcuff yourself Copman.

How do you know I haven't??? eek!

Any Outsporters in Ohio able to drop by and unlock Copman?

Thanks for the fantasy C-Man!

Im glad there are some gay Republicans who want to try and change the party, but I grew tired of the Republican way a long time ago.
I was in the closet when I first started college and this really nice guy wanted me to join the Young Republicans group, which at UNC could be counted on 2 hands. So I did hoping to meet friends that way. Well, the group had these 2 grad students that were like pushing 30 that wanted to basically take control of the whole deal and the little newspaper they had, which always spurred trouble. Far right winger guys. The rest of us and that nice guy was moderate. So there ended up being a split in a group of 20 people into 2 Republican groups!! On a campus where everyone was a Young Democrat. I just thought it was absurd and quit the whole deal.

The came time I was out of the closet. Not too happy with Jesse Helms as always. Decided to vote Democrat but something didnt seem right about that either. Our nice gay mayor of Carrboro NC was cool, but most Dems just seemed out of touch as well. Pork barrellers especially in NC. Then youve got the protests on UNC's campus over Nike sweatshops while the people protesting wore their Prada. It was just as crazy to me.

The only true way for anyone to be is in the middle. I dont care if you plan to choose to be in one party or another, but everyone is in the middle one way or another. Thats how I plan to remain. Going left or right is not good for a government. And in the state of Texas if I dont vote in a primary, I will never have a political party listed on my voter card! People should vote with their heart and their heads, not vote to spite the other party.

I always think these type of articles are interesting, and his is well written. The thing that strikes me is that it almost seems like they are somehow trying to convience themselves and not the reader.

It's a good thing he ran for office in Mass, a liberal state. He wouldnt stand a snowballs chance in hell here in Texas or pretty much anywhere in the south.

In that, you're incorrect. Those of us who are secure in our party affiliation crossed over despite enormous pressure to NOT become republican. For gay men, the pressure is to become a dem not a GOP.
Therefore, those who make the transition know exactly why we are GOP.

It's sort of like those who, despite societal pressure, come out as gay. Those who come out as gay are sure of their sexual orientation. whereas many who take the more accepted route of stating their heterosexuality are in serious doubt.

No we're not trying to convince ourselves anything. We're merely trying to explain ourselves since whenever we say we're gay republicans, our gay sistahs look at us like we just said we're from the planet Neptune.

Gee, I wonder why..
Bush supports sodomy laws, Rick "man on dog" Santorum gets patted on the back for his remarks,
Cheney wont acknowledge the fact his daughter is a dyke, .... shall I go on??
(By the way, I know Clinton signed DOMA)

Raze,

Don't even try to stereotype us all into one big monolithic morass. I neve harped on Clinton and DOMA. That would be someone else.

and are you telling me that no democrat is anti-gay? Come on. we are dealing with reality here. Right?

EXACTLY---I couldn't have said it better (except I would have said "Gay brothers")

[ June 15, 2003, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: copman ]

That is one reason why I started this post- to show our diversity - We are not all the same, obviously. "Strength through diversity." :cool:

Never said that, as a matter of fact I have stated the opposite on more than one occasion. We have our share of those but you guys have cornered the market.

We KNOW this, Copman! Sheesh. I mean, one of the major anti-gay GOP fundraisers, Terry Dolan of NCPAC, was a closet gay. David Brock is gay. Etc. Etc. None of this is news.

And not every gay man looks at you like you're from "Neptune." I think some gay GOPers like to repeat this as a kind of victimology, to convince yourselves of your allegiance to a party--not individual politicians, but a national party--that continues to promote heterosexism and homophobia.

Say what you will about individual Democrats, some of whom as bad as GOPers, but the party in general, the national party, is not as anti-gay as the Republicans. DOMA, which Clinton did NOT initiate, is a low point, but if you look at the vote for that, the majority of Senators and House members who voted against it were Democrats. It was a bill the GOP pushed at the federal level, and that they've pushed at the local level.

At any rate, all of us should be true to who we are. If your interests lie with the GOP, then you ought support them.

FanTomas,

You and I have been through enough discussions on this site alone to know that the minute "gay" and "republican" are uttered in the same breath, a legion of negative posts come pouring in like mormon crickets descending on a wheat field.

I'm the last person in the world to play the "poor me" card. Just the facts.

You poor thing, that's so sad.
Give this man a tax cut, he'll feel better.

Obviously so did gov richards and the dem house and senate in tx... inclusion for all in your party.

snipped from http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/texas/txeditorial06.htm

When Texas’s criminal code came up for revision in 1993, Ann Richards (rather courageously for a statewide politician in Texas) favored eliminating the criminal ban on "sodomy" which had long existed in Texas law. Richards had openly embraced gay supporters in her 1990 run for governor and had forthrightly made clear to the voters that she opposed discrimination against gays and interference in our private lives. The proposed criminal code revision she sent to the legislature eliminated the "sodomy" ban. The legislature reinstated it over her objections. She reluctantly signed the bill because vetoing it would not have accomplished anything (the existing sodomy law would simply have remained in force) and would have sacrificed many other unrelated progressive improvements in the code. While Democrats controlled the legislature at the time, Republicans were a strong minority. The Democratic-controlled State Senate actually sided with Richards in narrowly voting to eliminate the ban (almost all "yes" votes coming from Democrats and most "no" votes from Republicans). The Democratic-controlled House, regrettably, voted 75-50 to retain the ban, but almost all the 50 progressive votes came from Democrats, with Republicans almost unanimously (together with some conservative Democrats) providing the bulk of the homophobic votes. An especially vicious Republican state legislator, Jane Nelson, was the leading voice opposing the decriminalization of gay sex.

In the 1994 governor’s race, George W. Bush (whom Mr. Carpenter now supports for President) chose to make an issue out of Richards’s support for decriminalizing gay sex. She maintained her support for decriminalization, but Bush declared (and has never recanted to this day) that he would veto any bill doing so, because it was important to keep on the books a "symbolic" statement against homosexuality.

Isnt it great when someone who supports you sells you down the river and hits ya right in the back with the knife... I support you, but i wont take a stand for you. GREAT JOB PRO-GAY Richards. Really, in the end she's no different than W.

Guess you didnt read the whole article above:
George W. Bush chose to make an issue out of Richards’s support for decriminalizing gay sex.

I was here, I remember this, he made an issue out of the fact that she was against the sodomy laws, he went out of his way to make it clear he supported sodomy laws. To say that she is "no difference" is nuts.

If I use your same "logic" I could say, well Bush is pro life, wants to do away with all abortions, he has the House and the Senate but has not done anything, way to go PRO LIFE Bush, you're a loser.

[ June 16, 2003, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

It's always great when your dem supporters "relucatantly" sign all of these bills... give me your vote, you're important until other votes are at stake.

It's also noteworthy that the majority of Democratic reps., even in Texas, oppose sodomy laws. The reason the laws stay on the books is because a minority of democrats side with the overwhelming majority of republicans who support them.

What are "all these bills"
DOMA and what else?

read the article, she "reluctantly" signed the bill, for some other legislation. You dont think DOMA is enough? that 1,000 times worse than anything W's done, now isnt it?

Where are their morals? I'm simply here to point out that... these people who come out and "say" they support you... always cave in the end. It's ok tho, i'm sure gov richards let the state employees have a pic-nic the day after supporting the sodomy laws.

Once again PhillyFan, you try to see things as either black or white. Did you read this part?
" because vetoing it would not have accomplished anything (the existing sodomy law would simply have remained in force) and would have sacrificed many other unrelated progressive improvements in the code"

You never addressed my point eariler - Bush is pro life, has the Senate and the House. Why hasnt he made abortion illegal? How does he say he supports the pro life crowd and then "caves in?"

well considering i'm not pro-life... i dont care. And it's not the pro-life's goal to do this through legislation... i would think they would like to have it over turned via the supreme court.

Yeah, it looks like she did a bang up job on the sodomy law there buddy... made it soo progressive they had to take it to the supreme court. Why not take a stand and say, if i support gay rights, i dont care... i'm not signing this.

In the same case.. let's say the dems had full control of both (house and senate LOL like it will ever happen) and sent through a bill to make abortion totally legal forever, would someone who is strictly pro-life sign that thing? or say no way, and if they have the votes to get it through over the veto... so be it.

How does Richards, clinton... or any of these other fools support you when they cave in at the first sign of trouble?

Someone please tell me how you make a law against sodomy any more "progressive"? Make it legal on tuesdays and illegal the rest of the days a week? come on that is a joke.

[ June 16, 2003, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: PhillyFan ]

As bad as DOMA is, that law, by itself, does not criminalize sex between consenting adults of the same sex. And from what I read from the article, Gov. Richards at least proposed to the state legislature to eliminate the sodomy law (and if there were just enough less homophobes in the legislature, it would have become law), whereas W. made a point to keep it in the books. Phillyfan, I just don't understand why you keep on missing this simple point of logic.

With respect to DOMA, again, W. has not proposed a bill to repeal it. Only on this point is he no worse (or better) than Clinton.

As for caving in, from the article, Richards did not cave in. It was clear that the sodomy ban was not going to pass. She's not a dictator, so it could not become law. And I suspect W. has caved in many a times to the religious right and others, for his increasing anti-gay stances.

And I guess I would rather have a picnic than go to jail over something that I should be able to take for granted. But that's just me.

yeah richards made having gay sex illegal more "progressive"... way to go babe... you guys appologize for yet another dem who blew smoke up your ass for your vote, then when push came to shove, sold you down the river for someone else.

If you want to be a pro-gay politician, then run on it and stick to it. W bash all you want, i'm 110% confident he'd never sell out his pro-life stance whatsoever.

I was never a fan of Ann Richards myself, but I praise her for her actions with regard to her stance on gay rights. I don't believe JC in his post said that Richards made the sodomy law more progressive. And I don't have the viewpoint that it is more progressive, so take it easy there, PhillyFan. But if you want to take the position that she sold gay-rights supporters down the river (which I don't see here), fine. I'll still take her stance, over the absolutely disgusting actions that W. made in his campaign for governor regarding that issue.

As for W. and the pro-life issue, I don't believe he proposed a bill to Congress outlawing abortions. If that's the case, I don't think Richards sold out her supporter any more than W. did. If you disagree, fine. Then we'll agree to disagree. Not to get way off topic, but I guess W. will veto the tax cut bill, which was lower than what Bush initially proposed, and not sell us down the river for something else.

the article said "progressive".

Sorry i just dont see how you can proclaim someone as pro-gay when they back down when it's time do something... and you only appologize for their actions... "Oh, richards ran on gay rights, but then didnt do shit.. but hell she came to our pic-nic and talked alot"

These so called Pro-gay dems... will run on being pro-gay, then not take a solid stance on the sodomy law... or sign doma. then they turn around and say, let have a gay celebration. Or appoint the represenative to Demark (some fag)...

then ya'all get all pissed off is some pic-nic is cancelled.

I'm not sure what article you are referring to, I was referring to JC's post regarding "progressive." As for this, and as for Richards not being able to pass the antisodomy bill, we obviously see the chain of events differently, so it's a waste to argue this point.

W. is pro-life, but he did not propose any bill to Congress. He ran on cutting taxes, and had a tax plan, but he is reducing it this year. I'm afraid all politicians, W. and Richards included, run on certain positions, but abandon them one way or another when they get to office. That's the way it is with politicians, and we voters accept it. I have made a point in other posts that I rarely vote for incumbents for that reason, and W. will be no exception next year.

And as for turning any discussion into a simplistic picnic, DOMA, or pork chops thing, it's amusing, but pointless. Have a nice day, I'm going to eat some pupusas now.

[ June 16, 2003, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

You cant have a pic-nic without pork chops and potato salad....

and you cant have a pic nic with the dixi chics without a big cup of hot gravy for those chops.

Really, there's nothing else in life to understand.

When I see dumbya speak at a Fundraiser for gay causes (AIDS, HRC, MCC local etc.) as I have witnessed in person Ann Richards do (it'll probably be a cold day in hell), then I might change my opinion.

PhillyFan, (and I mean this in the loveliest way possible) this thread is obviously WAY over your head because you appear totally oblivious to reality, IMHO.

[ June 16, 2003, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: HornFan ]

We'll see if Jenna gets knocked up. Since he's alienated both Canada and Mexico, I guess they'd have to fly her to UK or Australia, where abortions are as easy to come by as french fries, oops, chips.

MOST pro-gay Dems are truly PRO-GAY, as is the case with some GOPers, and the pro-gay Dems in most cases HAVE kept up their ends of the bargain. In a number of the northeastern states and California, pro-gay Dems--along with likeminded GOPers--pushed through anti-discrimination bills so that you CANNOT be fired from your job, lose your children or your home, or be stripped of insurance, etc., for being or being thought to be homosexual. Not in New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc. , and the same is true in many cities and towns.

In some of the states, Republican governors signed the bills, but in most cases the fight came from pro-gay Democrats. This happened just recently in New York State, which has perhaps the largest urban and one of the largest suburban gay populations in the country. Pro-gay Democrats, along with GOP allies, finally pushed the pro-gay GOP governor, who'd dillydallied for years, to sign the damn bill. And it happened--finally!

Quite commonly the people leading the anti-gay propositions or pushing that legislation are conservative crackpot GOPers. Not always, but usually, like Lon Mabon.

So rather than yammering on about people blowing smoke up our asses--you can put that fantasy on another thread--talk about political reality, which is that pro-gay Democrats have done quite a bit, especially at the local levels.

Finally, you may hiss about "some fag" being appointed to "Demark" [sic], which I think does point to your self-loathing. Do you hiss about about "some straight" idiot multimillinaire being appointed to "Britan" or "Grece" or "Brazl"?

[ June 16, 2003, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Yet another Guerriero profile, this one in the Boston Globe magazine.

The only Replublican I've ever voted for was Bill Weld, so I'm not an LCR by a long shot. However, I'd be delighted to see the organization become more effective at its "core task" of actually exerting influence and effecting measurable change within the party.

Carry on, man, and good luck. God knows, you'll need it.

It's also worth remarking that, with Cheryl Jacques (pronounced "Jakes") taking the reins at HRC, the two top liberal and conservative national political organizations are headed by Massachusetts politicans whose sexuality was a non-issue to their suburban constituencies. Guerriero: "In this state, we have worked through a lot of the anxiety around sexual orientation." Another reason to love it here. That, the Pats & the Red Sox...

[ January 20, 2004, 05:34 AM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]