Log Cabin Republicans understand that being in the ruling class is far more important than having conventional sexual preferences. That when you are born with plenty of money, and the game is rigged in favor of the rich, you can live any way you please.

I just wish Dan Savage would join the Log Cabin Republicans. As it is, every time he goes on TeeVee the Democrat's poll numbers drop.

I would argue that "Selfish Rationalization" is the definition of Republican politics.

Nothing wrong with the LCR position. We eagerly await McCain's trouncing of Hillarious Clinton. If she's lucky, she might win 10 states. Oh, and Ohio and Florida will remain red states. WA, OR, Iowa, MN & Wisconsin will be joining the red states.

I would agree with #2.

ME ME ME!!!

@3: Not only are you wrong, you're also delusional. HRC has no chance of getting the nomination.

Annie, I can certainly understand your frustration. LCR frustrate me to no end as well. But really, they are such a tiny tiny minority of a small minority population, that they really aren't worth paying any attention to at all (unless they're armed). Their own party doesn't even pay any attention to them. LCR are among the most deluded of Americans.

@2, I'm kind of mad that you took that great line away from me.

Gay Republicans are refreshingly honest: NIMBY, better you than me, I got mine so fuck you, the war is great since only other people's kids are fighting it, etc. If only the straight ones would stop pretending.

It is kind of funny to see people who are conservative to their very core but who side with Democrats because they are gay. Of course a lot of things are funny when you have a two party system.

(PS: They only support half of the Second Amendment.)

I have said before, the idea of "states rights" is outdated. We are one of the ONLY nations that seems to think that making different laws in different states works. We abhor nationalism here, to our detriment. I know I am going to piss off lots of people when I say that we need to stop allowing states to have different laws.

My father has said many times "why should I care about the education of someone in Kansas?"

Then I say "Because they are American, and you should want your fellow Americans to be functioning, able members of society".

In that same vein, just because you outlaw handguns in Washington DC doesn't mean its going to work because people can get guns less than 20 miles away. Duh.

We need Nationalism in this country. We need to be Americans first, Washintonians second, and [insert ethnicy] third. Just like everyone other damn country.

So no, its not just LCR's. Its everyone.

#9:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

gay libertarians-understandable

gay republicans- retarded

while I may be voteing democrat this election season and i may have voted democrat last election season...I am by no means a democrat

republicans or democrats? it's a game of which set of rights under which set of rationals you want to dispose of

I've always felt that being a Gay Republican is just like being a Jewish Nazi -- they make no sense whatsoever

@10,

Indeed.

@9,

The problem with your argument is that, if anything, rural parts of the country have more political power than urban areas. To wit, if we have a national educational policy, it's as likely, or more likely, to look like something from Kansas as something from California. And, since the states would no longer be allowed to do what they please, liberal states would be stuck with those backwards educational policies.

It would be great to force liberal values from the top down, but that's rarely how it works.

@9- on some level, yes, on many others, nationalism misses the point. America, like Canada and other large countries, have a really heterogeneous population compared to smaller European countries. Things like education really are regional issues, and National decisions about the minutiae of these matters would be like the EU trying to homogenize lesson plans in London to those in Berlin. Different populations have different interests, different goals, and different influences. It's one of the things that makes these countries unique, but also presents these conflicts of interest.

Though Canada is similar, our 'splinter factions' are positioned such that it favours liberal-sided legislation like gay marriage. Quebec has a large population relative to other provinces, a lot of political clout, and a very liberal populace. Alberta, the conservative stronghold, has relatively little power in Ottawa (28 seats to Ontario and Quebec's 181 of 308 total). Clearly, this is the opposite in America, where the dems and GOP are more equally dispersed, with a very strong conservative base.

@12- Some gay people, myself included, choose not to define every aspect of our lives based on our sexuality. I am a political moderate and have voted for people (Canadian "Liberals", mostly) who may not support gay marriage, but have superior concepts of fiscal management and government spending than parties who fervently support gay marriage (such as the NDP).

@Keshmeshi: Not true. The majority of population is not in the rural areas, and if you restructed the government, which we would have to do W7ngman, it would weight higher to higher population.

I don't think this will happen anytime soon mind you, but it is DESPERATELY needed. What we have now are little areas being controlled seperately, which is like having little kingdoms everywhere. That didn't work for Europe and it won't continue to work here. Of course we are a much younger country so I understand why we did it ;).

Sooo... why shouldn't Washington gays fuck gays who live in other states? I'm all for an occasional, no strings attached, piece of out of state ass.

So what do I do if I think that Obama and Clinton are not qualified to be president? Vote for one of them anyway just 'cuz I'm queer? I'd rather sacrifice lip sevice from the Dems and tepid support of gay marriage than abandon what I think is in the best interest of this country's security and economic future.

raindrop it isn't terribly important what you do. The reason there is no third party is that there are never going to be that many people who can mash together the contradictory ideas that you should be free to be gay but that corporations and the rich know what's best for us. The very same attitudes that oppress gays also oppress blacks and women and the poor. Almost everyone who has ever been kicked down by society, and who can think through why they were kicked down, is a Democrat.

So do whatever; it isn't going to move the election one way or the other.

@17: Uh, you should obviously vote Republican. Again, I don't have a problem with the fact that some gays vote R. Big deal: People may have well thought-out reasons for doing so (lower taxes, for example, is a legitimate desire, and you may honestly subscribe to trickle-down economic theory). What I strongly object to is the reasoning in this op-ed--the author implies he might have voted for Obama, were it not for the fact that the advancement of gay rights at the national level matters not a whit to him, thanks to his WA state domestic partnership. That is unadulterated selfishness.

@15,

No, the majority of the population isn't in rural areas, the political power is in rural areas. If you try to impose national policy from the top down, in as large and diverse a country as the United States, you're going to wind up with some really shitty outcomes.

@15,

And, actually, I don't get the reference to Europe. There are dozens of countries in Europe, still mostly sovereign despite the EU. Combining all those countries under one government, enforcing policies from the top down with no regard to ethnic, racial, religious, or other minorities or even just plain-old disagreements in how to govern would make for a massive clusterfuck.

@18 said:

Almost everyone who has ever been kicked down by society, and who can think through why they were kicked down, is a Democrat.

Indeed. This is classic Democrat class warfare. Democrats milk that disposition in the electorate and love to see it spread. Victimhood is key to the party’s success. Yes, I agree that racial and sexual minorities have been kicked down, but some in that kicked down category rise above their self pity and become self-reliant and successful, and then even if they lose it all again and again, they always get up and try again. These are the people that become employers and not just the employees.

Yeah, yeah I know. Karl Rove thought he could say that fairy tale to Latino voters and win them over for the GOP. A lot of people even believed it, for about five minutes. Good luck trying to sell that line to the gays.

Hi Annie,

First, your post title is misleading: I'm not a Log Cabin Republican, nor a Republican. I was simply pointing out that, this year, Log Cabin Republicans in Washington State would not be as, ahem, screwed over should they want to vote Republican in the presidential election. You are right, though: the flip side is a vote that would possibly (probably?) hurt gays in other states. That's something that would always have to be considered when voting for a Republican...

Haidn

#22:

I am one of those people you mention and, quite frankly, I would prefer that people as a whole not get kicked down. This is why, now that I feel like I'm making it, I vote for the Democrats rather than being selfish. I remember where I came from and, like Warrent Buffet, don't believe that rich people and corporations should fight to keep people like me at a disadvantage so they can retain their natural advantages.

And, to reiterate, Republicanism does not equal a good economic or secure future. If anything, their policies seem to push us in the opposite direction of that.

@25: I'm not arguing against the safety net. But it is not just one pie that that we all share. The circumference of the pie is expanding and shrinking in a capitalistic society. Republicans are typically better at increasing its size, Democrats feel it will never get any larger and want to restrict everybody to the same size slice. I think that's selfish!

Republicans are typically better at increasing its size

No, they're not. They're better at giving people who are already stuffed even bigger slices of pie. The Democrats are better at increasing the size of the pie and making sure everyone gets a slice.

Posted by marcpaige at 4/15/08 12:19 p.m.

Haidn tells the Log Cabin Republicans of Washington they can feel comfortable turning their back on our brave men and women who want to serve in the military and not live in fear of being outed as gay and lose their careers. They can be comfortable not worrying about gay couples in Idaho who have no protections at all, or even gay couples in Washington who will get NO FEDERAL PROTECTIONS AND BENEFITS under McCain, as opposed to Obama and Clinton who support federal rights for gay couples in unions or marriages. This is not right, and Haidn is wrong!