Subscribe to Breaking NewsRuby-Sachs: Log Cabin Republicans and the next election
I’m confused by Log Cabin Republicans.
I see their booths at gay events, I even became friends with one or two in law school, but still, the idea of voting for a party that works against your equal rights amazed me. So I looked them up.
According to their website, Log Cabin Republicans have a, “firm belief in the principles of limited government, individual liberty, individual responsibility, free markets and a strong national defense.” Moreover, they believe in working within the Republican Party to bring about equal treatment for gays and lesbians.
Perhaps a foolhardy effort, but then again, working within the United States government for equal rights for Black people or immigrants seemed pretty ridiculous at a time in history too.
So let’s take them at their word: they are fiscal conservatives who perhaps believe in a strict construction of the constitution and a cap on judicial activism. They also feel that the best way to achieve equal rights is to work with those who wish to oppose them.
I still have one problem. The next election may choose four years of economic and social policy, but it will also make one other important choice that will affect the rights of gays and lesbians for at least three generations to come: Supreme Court appointments.
Today, the Court has four liberal justices, Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter and Breyer. And four conservative appointments who tow the party line, Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas. Kennedy, a conservative appointment who waffles, has often been the necessary vote to tip the balance in the liberals’ favor.
He was in the most recent Roe v. Wade challenge and again in Lawrence v. Texas.
This is important to understand, Lawrence v. Texas is the same decision that allowed Log Cabin Republicans to have sex at all, legally, in many of their home states.
The problem is that these judges age, and two of them, Stevens and Ginsburg, are aching to retire (literally).
If Obama becomes president he would, at least, be able to maintain the status quo, maybe put a woman or two up there, and create a few more years of an even fight for those hoping for progressive judgments.
If McCain wins, two conservative appointments would shift the majority, leave us with six conservative votes, and little hope for the rights of gay men to engage in sexual intercourse legally.
It’s not just gay men who will suffer. The right of women to enforce the Violence Against Women Act will be in jeopardy. As well, habeas corpus, that age old right to know what crime you are charged with committing, is also at risk. Not to mention abortion. We would have a conservative majority in all the unforeseen legal challenges the Court may choose to adjudicate in the future.
This president can do whatever temporary decision making it wants and nothing will have such a lasting effect as the choice of the next two justices of the Supreme Court.
Log Cabin Republicans may advocate gradual legislative change, but when the very act of love that defines your personal identity (and membership in your group, I assume) is threatened, perhaps sacrificing a few years of small government is worth it.
So basically, this article is stating that you can agree with the Republicans on almost every issue and be considered a Republican yourself BUT if you disagree with their stance on homosexuality, you cannot be a Republican?
Do you also believe the same about Democrats? If you don’t support gays/lesbians, are you not allowed to be a Democrat? What about abortion? Illegal-immigration?
Sorry but I am not a single-issue voter nor should anyone be. Although I do plan on voting Democratic.
The best way to address the issue is not to attack them from the other side, but to work with them.
To me, this article is nonsense. It’s basically stating that in order to support a party, you have to agree with them on every issue. It’s just like the religious who claim you cannot be religious and gay. Beyond idiotic.
The issue of gay republicans? How about Obama, the product of an interracial couple, not supporting same-sex marriage when his own parents were subject to the EXACT same kind of arguments and discrimination less than 45 years ago?
How crazy is that?.. :\
Wayne, are you saying that, because Obama doesn’t support same-sex marriage that we should vote for McCain? Obama will nominate Supreme Court justices who will at least have the chance to overturn DOMA on constitutional grounds. McCain (or worse, Palin) would send us into the dark ages. I think you are missing the baby steps toward equality that Obama will provide. McCain would be several steps backward. I only speak of these two because a vote for anyone else is throwing away your vote. Until there is a constitutional amendment requiring a majority of votes to win office, we will be living with a two-party-only system.
I never understood LCR either. Why support a political party when they don’t support you?
Not that the dems are any better, but at least they’re the lesser of two evils. Sure, I get the argument that the gay republicans keep saying but it’s not working.
Hey Ruby-Sachs, I’m wondering if Obama will consult with Reverend Donnie McClurkin, Mary Mary or Reverend Hezekiah Walker before nominating judges. I know that he’s stood by them in supporting his campaign. Funny, Obama calls this “40 Days of Faith and Family.” I don’t see any gay families represented.
Let me get this straight, no pun intended. Barack Obama disagrees with us on one issue and supports us on everything else. John McCain disagrees with us on literally every issue. Yet there are actually LGBT voters who can support McCain-Palin and sleep at night? Obama supports all the rights of marriage, and his website flatly states that he and Biden would support an inclusive ENDA, the Matthew Shepard Act, and strengthened hate crimes laws. On top of all that, he has a history of supporting civil rights and argued vocally for LGBT equality in the Illinois congress. How anyone can vote for McCain-Palin is beyond me. And no, I’m not “insulting” the Log Cabin Republicans. What I am doing is strongly disagreeing with their stance.
Matt: I’m not voting for the McCain-Palin ticket, but it’s not like all gays support hate crimes laws or nondiscrmination laws.
I personally see absolutely no reason for hate crimes laws because it’s essentially an attempt to criminalize thoughts. Since I do not favor the concept of thoughts being illegal, and punishments for crimes can only be logically levied on crimes committedd, I cannot rationally support hate crimes legislation.
I do support non-discrimination laws because of potential economic benefits that would come from such laws. Nonetheless, it is a fact that the private sector would, left to its own devices, make discrimination a thing of the past anyway. And that would come without the need to impose a new restriction on the market.
Let me get this straight, no pun intended. Barack Obama disagrees with us on one issue———– You trivilize a major issue, and that’s not the only problem with Obama. Obama feels that gay relationships should not be considered as valid marriages. The Conneticut Supreme Court has just ruled that Obama’s policy of “Separate But Equal” civil unions are discriminatory against gay people! And Obama has anti-gay marriage, Yes on Prop 8 advocates shilling for him on “Obama Faith Tours”! Obama has also backed away from his promises to end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Obama will tell you whatever you want to hear, but Obama can’t even spare 10 seconds of his time to do a “Vote No on Prop 8″ add, and yet he expects gay people to support him, even though he plans to segragate us. It’s pathetic.
I wonder if Kari isn’t an imposter.
Hate crimes as “thought crimes” = Straight out of the Peter LaBarbera playbook.
Excellent article Ruby, and thought provoking.
Hate crimes are not thought crimes. There needs to be action motivated by hate. And the actions need to demonstrate the crime was based on hate, like yelling fag or dyke when beating someone up, or telling a person “let’s go beat up some fags.”
A crime against a gay man, lesbian, or trans person, in and of itself, is not a hate crime.
And all the talk about McClurkin and company is small potatoes.
Look at who is supporting and campaigning for McCain – the powerful A-Team cast of horrors:
Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the rightwing AM radio freak show
James Dobson, head of the rabidly homophobic Focus on the Family, who donates tens of millions of dollars to anti gay causes.
Phyllis Schaffley, head of Concerned Women for America, who wants to do everything in her power to keep us legally disenfranchised, even though she has a gay so who works for how – how disfunctional is that!
The Mormon Church, whose members have donated more than 25 million, yes 25 million, to the Yes on 8 campaign. These straight people hate us so much they are donating nore than $5,000 a pop to take away our rights, and they support McCain because their church tells them to do so.
The Knights of Columbus – a lay Catholic group, who was the largest single donor to the Yes on 8 campaign, more than $1 million dollars. And this group endorses and promotes McCain Palin.
The Christian Coalition (thankfully it is losing political power), Pat Robertson (yes gay rights cause natural disasters) and the 700 Club. How morally bankrupt are they.
Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rove, Rumsfeld, Gonzales…need i say more.
This is the A-Team of anti-gay hate and they all support McCain/Palin. They are all very dangerous and can affect our every day lives.
McClurkin and company, they are the C-team and Obama has repudiated their views.
Why would we assume that LBGT Americans are any more logical than Americans at-large? Does being in a same-sex relationship make one wiser or less bigoted?
I know plenty of gays who are closeted racists. And you can bet they’re not voting for Obama. Now, they don’t parade around with swastika tattoos and red armbands. That would be too easy. But go to any gay bar in America and get a few beers in these folks. You’d be amazed at how quickly they go from “mild mannered white dude” to “Joseph Goebbels” when drunk.
Log Cabin republicans suffer from self hate and greed. I feel sorry for them as although they might have a lot of material things, they are lacking so much in other ways that it is truly sad. I could see there side a little if it wasn’t for the supreme court but they are risking hurting a generation of Gay youth.I thusly see them as despicable people that I personally find no better then the Fred phelps of this world.
I read the 365gay.com article on the AFA boycott of McDonalds due to McDonalds previous pro-gay support, and the subsequent corporate cave in by McDonalds executives. Thus, I think it is important to add that the rabidly homophobic AFA (which organized boycotts against pro-gay companies like Disney, Ford, and Proctor and Gamble, have endorsed McCain/Palin. No surprise there. Just another notch in the anti- LGBT A-Listers supporting that ticket.
JohnM, your list of those associated with Senator McCain does not address why Obama supports and allows such hateful people to be campaigning for him. Senator Obama likes to call himself an agent of change. With friends like that, I can see him wanting to change gay folks lives a lot!
I felt all these same things, but for Obama. I see his booth at a gay event and I think… Why didn’t he go to Chicago Pride? Why doesn’t he address Larry Sinclair? Why is he afraid of gay people in general? Why did he come to Philadelphia and not talk with any of the gay media while he was here?
You know he was getting his hair done during Chicago gay pride. Hillary was one of the first higher ranked politicians to march with us gays. but Obama is a great choice. Either way, McCain or Obama, it’s over for gays. We’ll just be sensationalized in celebrity press and straight media as lezzies that just want to have babies and faggies that can make you fabulous.