Gay GOP group hesitantly backs Romney

Gay GOP group hesitantly backs Romney - Yahoo! News

Stonewall Democrats, a national gay group backing Obama, called the decision by Log Cabin Republicans shameful and insulting. "This is politics at its worst — when a community sells out its own people for the gain of a few individuals," Jerame Davis, the group's executive director, said in a statement.


The last-minute endorsement by the Republican group reflected persistent tensions among gay conservatives about what role to play within a party still largely opposed to many of the broader gay community's priorities. Another gay Republican group, GOProud, in June said it would "enthusiastically endorse" Romney and pledged to "commit significant resources" to electing him.

Click to expand...

Not sure where I stand on this. On one hand, some people don't find gay rights (or well, just rights) in general. On the other, this feels like black people arguing that Jim Crow rights weren't all that important. However I looked up GOProud and found this:

"We founded GOProud to provide an unapologetic voice for gay conservatives and their straight allies. Since 2009, we have challenged conventional wisdom, smashed stereotypes and fought like hell for what we believe in."

...It feels "odd" to call people allies when they're actively working to deem your relationships as wrong and unworthy of the same societal and cultural benefits their unions get.

How dare they not be one issue voters. I bet they're not even artistic.

ecofarm said:

How dare they not be one issue voters. I bet they're not even artistic.

Click to expand...

Oh what nonsense. As if gay rights means "one issue". It's actually a number of issues. The first and most important is the second recognition people are trying to place on them.

Gay Republicans are still Republicans. Gay people have no inherent immunity to absurdly over-simplified beliefs or belief in myths like the iphone-toting welfare queen.

sounds like they endorsed him for reason beyond LGBT issues.... and well, nothing really wrong with that I suppose,as there actually are more issues that LGBT issues.

they should have endorsed Gary Johnson... But I suppose, as many folks tend to do, they wanted to stick with someone who had a chance at winning.

Hatuey said:

Oh what nonsense. As if gay rights means "one issue". It's actually a number of issues.

Click to expand...

Maybe they're neocons.

Hatuey said:

Gay GOP group hesitantly backs Romney - Yahoo! News



Not sure where I stand on this. On one hand, some people don't find gay rights (or well, just rights) in general. On the other, this feels like black people arguing that Jim Crow rights weren't all that important. However I looked up GOProud and found this:

"We founded GOProud to provide an unapologetic voice for gay conservatives and their straight allies. Since 2009, we have challenged conventional wisdom, smashed stereotypes and fought like hell for what we believe in."

...It feels "odd" to call people allies when they're actively working to deem your relationships as wrong and unworthy of the same societal and cultural benefits their unions get.

Click to expand...

So your saying that all gays have to vote one way on one issue and that nothing else can be important but marriage to them or more important than that......your selling them way to short and trying to stick them in a small box.

In fairness, most upcoming issues dealing with gay rights are probably going to be handled by the states or the courts. Obama called for the Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, but that was a no-brainer for him. Allowing gays to serve is more popular than gay marriage and the military itself said that the policy could be repealed. Something like the repeal of DOMA or the introduction of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is unlikely regardless of who becomes President. I'm not saying that gay rights are not an important issue or that Romney is as gay-friendly as Obama, but in terms of actual, substantive policy that is likely to come out of either administration there probably won't be too much difference unless public opinion really changes in the next few years.

Edit: I could very well be wrong, and the President could choose to really push the issue, but there isn't much right now indicating that they would do so. However, it is still a reasonable position to hold, and one can honestly believe it when deciding who to vote for. The American people, including homosexuals, have many concerns about the country. Gay rights is one issue, and people should not be put into a box.

Hatuey said:

Gay GOP group hesitantly backs Romney - Yahoo! News



Not sure where I stand on this. On one hand, some people don't find gay rights (or well, just rights) in general. On the other, this feels like black people arguing that Jim Crow rights weren't all that important. However I looked up GOProud and found this:

"We founded GOProud to provide an unapologetic voice for gay conservatives and their straight allies. Since 2009, we have challenged conventional wisdom, smashed stereotypes and fought like hell for what we believe in."

...It feels "odd" to call people allies when they're actively working to deem your relationships as wrong and unworthy of the same societal and cultural benefits their unions get.

Click to expand...

So then should pro-life Democrats not vote for Obama? Voting along 1 single issue isn't very rational in my opinion.

Deuce said:

Gay Republicans are still Republicans. Gay people have no inherent immunity to absurdly over-simplified beliefs or belief in myths like the iphone-toting welfare queen.

Click to expand...

or the idea that people who disagree with you are all simple-minded oafs.

digsbe said:

So then should pro-life Democrats not vote for Obama? Voting along 1 single issue isn't very rational in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Depends, I think, on your particular litmus test and how important party affiliation or loyalty is. Should someone who is pro-Second Amendment vote for Obama?

Someone I have come to know as of the past year or so grew up as a conservative and had found themselves in a similar position of being for the institution of marriage which would finally allow him to be wed to the man he will someday love, but still considers his Christian faith as well as his conservative disposition (especially in regards to turning it into a state matter) to be that much more important.

I could hardly fault those like him. In my area (with the disability rights movement and related developments), it is a heavily Left-wing tendency, whereas I have a certain amount of a conservative streak that is seen as parochial. It is quite easy to see shocked faces when I reveal some of my conservative disposition. It is in some ways seen as a betrayal.

It has always amazed me how the Republicans get so many people to vote for them against their own best interest. Seems like another example to me

Fiddytree said:

Someone I have come to know as of the past year or so grew up as a conservative and had found themselves in a similar position of being for the institution of marriage which would finally allow him to be wed to the man he will someday love, but still considers his Christian faith as well as his conservative disposition (especially in regards to turning it into a state matter) to be that much more important.

I could hardly fault those like him. In my area (with the disability rights movement and related developments), it is a heavily Left-wing tendency, whereas I have a certain amount of a conservative streak that is seen as parochial. It is quite easy to see shocked faces when I reveal some of my conservative disposition. It is in some ways seen as a betrayal.

Click to expand...

I don't understand why anyone would assume that simply because one is a part of a particular group, this means that there is a uniformity in political POVs.

The fallacy is this thread is people assuming "gay rights" means one issue. Same kind of people who would think equal rights of any sort are one issue.

mak2 said:

It has always amazed me how the Republicans get so many people to vote for them against their own best interest. Seems like another example to me

Click to expand...

But they would just as easily counter that their philosophy of conservatism is their best interest.

Hatuey said:

The fallacy is this thread is people assuming "gay rights" means one issue. Same kind of people who would think equal rights of any sort are one issue.

Click to expand...

Certainly that is true.

Thrilla said:

sounds like they endorsed him for reason beyond LGBT issues.... and well, nothing really wrong with that I suppose,as there actually are more issues that LGBT issues.

they should have endorsed Gary Johnson... But I suppose, as many folks tend to do, they wanted to stick with someone who had a chance at winning.

Click to expand...

Yes, most people vote hoping that their vote may actually produce a tangible result.

mak2 said:

It has always amazed me how the Republicans get so many people to vote for them against their own best interest. Seems like another example to me

Click to expand...

are Democrats good for every one of your best interests?

joko104 said:

Yes, most people vote hoping that their vote may actually produce a tangible result.

Click to expand...

probably true...

The republican party is a lot different then they are viewed by the left. Although they support traditional marraige in the party platform they also believe in everyone's dignity. The republican National Congressional Committee has spent over 1 million dollars this election cycle supporting an openly gay candidate in Massachusetts. Richard Tisei is the former Lt. governor of Massachusetts.
Being a social conservative I am not in favor of supporting this candidate as he has openly stated that he will vote for gay marraige and oppose the pro life policies of the party. John Boehner has campaigned for him.
It's hard to understand sometimes the misperceptions that a lot of people on the left hold about the republican party.
***************************************************************************************************************
Boehner spent Tuesday morning raising money for Republican candidate Richard Tisei, who is openly gay and supports same-sex marraige.

Tisei, who is running against Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.), seemed to indirectly address the fact that Boehner opposes gay rights in a statement ahead of their joint breakfast event in Boston.

"The Speaker understands that he and I do not agree on absolutely everything, and that I will often be a voice of independent leadership -- particularly if it is not in the interests of the Sixth District," Tisei said. "I look forward to working with the Speaker as a voice of reason and moderation in Congress to help solve our nation's problems."

Tisei campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Drogus declined to respond more specifically when asked about Tisei's take on Boehner's ongoing defense of DOMA. Boehner, along with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), decided to defend DOMA in court after Attorney General Eric Holder said in February 2011 that he would no longer defend the law because he had determined it to be unconstitutional.

Boehner campaign spokesman Cory Fritz also demurred when asked to explain how Boehner squares his support for Tisei with his views on gay rights.

"While they don't agree on every issue, Richard and the Speaker respect one another, and we expect Richard will be a strong, independent voice for his Massachusetts constituents that want a new approach to help create jobs and prosperity," Fritz said in a statement.

John Boehner, DOMA Defender, Campaigns For Openly Gay GOP Candidate

No, of course not. But the democrats don't get people to vote for leaders that want to reduce taxes on people making $250k when they are unemployed or make 30k. I don't know how they do it. another one I have seen recently, a family member (on my wife's side, thankfully) has not had a job in years. The parents pay for their house, she is an ER freak, going from one to the other for attention or drugs I am not sure which. Anyway she was on face book the other day talking about Obama being a communist and singing the praises of Romney. It just amazes me.,

Thrilla said:

are Democrats good for every one of your best interests?

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

The fallacy is this thread is people assuming "gay rights" means one issue. Same kind of people who would think equal rights of any sort are one issue.

Click to expand...

They are very important issues, but they are still not the totality of "the issues". Gays, like everyone else are concerned about the deficit, the economy, jobs, foreign policy, abortion, and how Obama did on the View.

mak2 said:

No, of course not. But the democrats don't get people to vote for leaders that want to reduce taxes on people making $250k when they are unemployed or make 30k. I don't know how they do it. another one I have seen recently, a family member (on my wife's side, thankfully) has not had a job in years. The parents pay for their house, she is an ER freak, going from one to the other for attention or drugs I am not sure which. Anyway she was on face book the other day talking about Obama being a communist and singing the praises of Romney. It just amazes me.,

Click to expand...

if they do not satisfy every best interest you have... why vote for them?

could it be because they satisfy other interests you have?.. I would wager you and I have prioritized our interests in deciding whom to vote for.... we've probably made trade offs and concessions of our own.

if I were voting just based on my best interests pertaining to taxes... i'd cast for Romney.( he's the only major candidate who doesn't want to raise my taxes.)
but I have already cast for Gary Johnson..as he represents my other interests better.

but yeah, some folks who vote boggle my mind too... but I don't tend to dwell on the hows and whys of those folks...they don't really matter to me, overall.

I think people should vote based on what they feel is most important. I am Republican - that doesn't mean that I agree with every Republican that I vote for, no matter what, under any circumstance. Only a narrow minded person would think that way about any candidate, in my opinion. I have voted democrat in some local elections because I knew the person and knew the values of the person. While I am pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, if I had to choose between those issues and national defense or the economy.... I would make national defense and the economy my priority in choosing the candidate - not two social issues. I find safety and security to be top issues for me. Some things are more important than others and we all have to decide what those things are for ourselves.