"Gay Republican" should be an oxymoron...but sadly, it's not

[thatcrazycajun]

This story from Politico.com notes that the premier (in fact, till now the only) political organization for homosexuals who self-identify as conservative, the Log Cabin Republicans, has apparently drifted far enough to the left that some of its members are starting a new group called GOPROUD to supplant it.

Now anyone who knows me well will tell you I have long maintained that anyone who isn't a rich, white, Anglo-Saxon, straight Judeo-Christian male has no damned business being either Republican or conservative. This is because Republican and conservative policies have historically hurt, continue to hurt and are designed consciously to hurt people who belong to any other subgroup of citizens. (This is why I tend to call women such as Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin "conservative fembots"—they must be androids built by men to parrot their wishes. And Malkin, being both a woman and Asian-American, is a double sellout.) But gay Republicans have always struck me as particularly pathetic examples of self-loathing and heterosexuality/wealth envy.

I know some of you will say that it is possible to be conservative on some other issues, such as national defense, education, tax policy, etc., while being in favor of equality for LGBTQ citizens. Leaving aside my own opposition to conservative views on those other issues, I don't believe the GOP should be forgiven for hurting queerfolk with some of their policies and views, or allowed and even helped to do so, simply because some other policies and views of theirs might make more sense. That's like applauding Tom DeLay for helping an old woman across the street just before he kicks a lesbian into the path of a speeding 18-wheeler.

Bottom line: both groups are financing or otherwise aiding and abetting the active harm of their own kind. And if you have a problem with this view as I've expressed it here, bring it.

Comments

[sffilk.livejournal.com]

I do have a problem with the term "Judeo-Christian male" since up until 1965, the "Judeo-Christian" mindset said that the Jews killed Jesus. Thank you, we did not!

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

You're right; go back far enough and you get "gentlemen's agreements" and Leo Frank in this country alone. I included Judeo-Christian in the privileged category because (a) at this time in history, i.e., today, some of the most prominent right-wingers in this country are Jews (e.g., David Horowitz, Mort Zuckerman, Jonah Goldberg) and (b) because at least some of the time, Jews get included in the Christian-white privilege because they do not always outwardly look or act in obvious difference from Christians. Jews have also historically been much more assimilated and economically successful in this country than other minority groups, chiefly in the financial and entertainment industries, and thus have more power to resist actively harmful policies, at least since the mid-20th century.

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

Jews have also historically been much more assimilated and economically successful in this country than other minority groups, chiefly in the financial and entertainment industries,

Ya see, the Republicans are right.
You just admitted it.
Jews do own the banks and the media.
(okay, laugh, it was a joke)

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

I kind of like Jon Stewart's response to that old canard: "You can't even get five Jews in a room to agree on what to have for dinner! Control the banks?! We couldn't even get that meeting started!"

[dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com]

The joke used to be, "Five Jews, six opinions."

The alternate was "You can't get Jews to agree on anything, except Israel." These days I'm not even sure of that, at least with regard to Israeli policy.

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

But how does that explain all the "tea bagging" going on among conservatives and Republicans?

[lemmozine.livejournal.com]

Not much to add, except, anyone who has a problem with your views as expressed here has a problem. They are your views. Keep on expressing them.

Now, here are some of mine, and if they happen to coincide with anyone else's, it is pure coincidence.

What I do have a problem with is anyone who bases their views on mythology. Excuse me, but there are huge, universe-encompassing doubts on the existence of JC as an historical figure (google search "jesus historicity" if you question this), and nobody can kill someone who never existed in the first place.

There is more chance that Robin Hood and Santa Claus were real people than JC, and like those 2, if there was a JC, the myth overtook the man long ago.

That being said, I generally agree with the songs of Kinky Friedman on the subject of religion, in particular, "They Ain't Makin' Jews Like Jesus Anymore." (In case anyone's curious, the basic view is that religion is comical.)

"We Jews believe it was Santa Claus that killed Jesus Christ." - Kinky Friedman

[maverick-weirdo.livejournal.com]

Under your reasoning that gender and ethnicity determins political afiliation, then that makes you a sellout. Since you happen to be an older white strait male, the you are "supposed" to be a Republican. Your Liberal view could equally be described as "self-loathing" your conservative heritage.

I am not saying this is true, but the stereotyping you are talking about here is no less hateful than what the Republicans do.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

>>Under your reasoning that gender and ethnicity determins political affiliation, then that makes you a sellout.<<

If so, I'm in very good company; Franklin Roosevelt was widely regarded as a class traitor (and still is, in some circles) for his policies as President that aided workers and lower/middle-class people. Besides, whatever my other ethnic and age and gender status, I am not rich by any stretch, so I don't quite make the cut.

[hitchhiker.livejournal.com]

http://crappygraphs.com/user_graphs/?id=118

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Not that it's especially gay people's job, but I see something like this (about Obama continuing Bush policies about prisoners lacking rights), and I'm reminded that we've gotta have a political opposition.

Do you track the explanations Log Cabin Republicans give for their choice? I haven't been, but they're probably relevant.

[dglenn.livejournal.com]

I understand (*cough* think I understand) someone being a gay conservative, FSVO 'conservative'. But I still don't get gay Republicans. At some point it looked like voices on the inside might have some chance of nudging the GOP in the right direction wrt rights, and yeah, some conservative queerfolk needed to be on the inside to do that experiment, but I think the results of that experiment have been clear for a while now.

OTOH, having a system that appears to only be stable in a two-party configuration may be the rest of the explanation. With more (major -- or at least nationally-significant) parties, there could well be an alternative conservative party that neither acted as a hypocritical self-parody nor elevated the worst aspects of conservatism into what it seemed most proud of, that gay conservatives could join. If they want to be effective, where can they go now? The only other major party is the Democratic party, which, yes, is another conservative party (with a few liberals in it) but isn't exactly a voice of conservatism (and, of course, of course, is usually spoken of as a liberal party by virtue of being the 'other' party from the conservative-labelled Republican conservative party). Er ... and yes, this analysis ex recto babble does still leave unexamined the whole matter of which meanings of 'conservative' make sense here ...

Heck, with more (major) parties, we might even have a proper liberal party, maybe even a centrist party as well. Alas, the pattern in US history so far (what there has been of it so far) has been either for third parties to come into being / come into prominence out of the ashes of one of the former pair, or to bring about (well, hasten?) the demise of one of the other two, so a few terms later were back to two.

I'd love to see the GOP crumble into dust, a chunk of the democrats spin off into a sane conservative party joined by what sane voices had still been hanging out with the GOP; most of the rest form a centrist party; and the few liberal Democrats join a new party (or a suddenly more significant old party, like maybe the Greens) that arises as a proper liberal party. (I could happily live with having the Communist and Constitution parties remain minor-league. Not sure what to do with the Libertarians in this fantasy -- maybe make them just big enough to be successful gadflies for their key issues?) But I digress. And am obviously too sleep-deprived to be allowed on the 'net currently. Whoops.