Slog
News & ArtsMonday, September 13, 2010
News Who's the Prominent Republican With the Illegal Boyfriend?
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:24 AM
Religious groups are threatening to sink any immigration reform legislation that includes language allowing the foreign partners of gay and lesbian US citizens to stay in the country legally, work legally, obtain citizenship, etc., just like the foreign partners of straight Americans. Stripping new rights for gay and lesbian couples from the immigration reform package was inevitable and predictable—I predicted the inevitable here—so I'm not surprised by this development. Even the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference prefers no immigration reform to immigration reform that affords some rights to same-sex couples. That's hate for you. But this detail from the Washington Post jumped out at me:
Another Washington gay couple, who requested that their names not be published because the foreign partner is a Latino man currently living in the country under false pretenses and the American partner is a prominent Republican whose identity could easily lead authorities to the other man, said gays and lesbians fall in love in the same unpredictable way as straight people. Sometimes, the object of that love happens to be a foreigner."When you love someone, it feels the same," said the Latino man, who is in the country on a tourist visa and has been working in violation of it. He is afraid that his immigration status could be exposed at any time, and he could be forced to leave. He travels outside the country periodically to keep his tourist visa valid, always making sure when he presents his visa at the border that he has an air ticket showing when he plans to leave the United States.
A prominent and presumably closeted Republican with an illegal Latino immigrant for a boyfriend—if the two men were building a Mosque near Ground Zero for gay Muslims who are in the country illegally they would hit the GOP hate-a-thon trifecta.
For the record: I don't want to know who this "prominent Republican" is—I don't want him publicly identified if it results in his boyfriend being deported—but you would think that gay man whose boyfriend was an illegal immigrant would consider bolting the gay-bashing, immigrant-bashing, pro-gay-reforms-blocking GOP. Love is... being a single-issue voter.
More info on immigration equality here.
1
I disagree with you on this one, Dan. I want this POSPGR (Piece of Shit Prominent Gay Republican) to reveal his identity. Perhaps, then, he would be forced to confront the same decision that so many of us with foreign partners have to make if we want to be responsible lovers and citizens: to stay in the country alone or leave the country with your partner.
Chances are, this POSPGR has not even considered the strain that this situation has put on his partner. Does his partner have medical coverage? Does his partner have the ability to have a bank account, credit card, drivers license, or any of the hundreds of other little things needed to function as an independent individual in modern American society?
Does this POSPGR know what it is like to be separated from your partner at immigration and customs when you travel to the US together, and worry that your partner might not make through while the bi-national straight couples have nothing worry about and get to proceed though the process together?
Has the POSPGR ever experienced harassment when crossing the land border on a weekend trip to Canada and being interrogated for two hours because the border officers cannot believe that two men can be married overseas and visit one partner's family in the US? Has he ever been accused of attempting to have the partner stay illegally - even though we have documents to prove our current jobs and residency in a foreign country and my partner has never overstayed a visa?
Does the POSPGR know what it feels like when his partner denied a simple long-stay visa because the US does not recognize his relationship, while all the straight people at the embassy that day got their partners permanent resident visas without question - even if some of the relationships are quite visibly fake?
Confronting these issues openly is the only way this situation is going to change. This guy should have to deal with this the same way that we all are forced to deal with it - by making some tough choices. What kind of love is it that allows one partner to put the other partner in the position of breaking the law? A stupid and unfair law that needs to change, but a law nevertheless. I have been able to make my relationship work with my partner without breaking the law by moving to my partner's country - if he is really in love then this guy should have to make the same sacrifices that the rest of us face.
POSPGR is a douche bag and is not helping the cause (or his partner) with his actions.
More...
Chances are, this POSPGR has not even considered the strain that this situation has put on his partner. Does his partner have medical coverage? Does his partner have the ability to have a bank account, credit card, drivers license, or any of the hundreds of other little things needed to function as an independent individual in modern American society?
Does this POSPGR know what it is like to be separated from your partner at immigration and customs when you travel to the US together, and worry that your partner might not make through while the bi-national straight couples have nothing worry about and get to proceed though the process together?
Has the POSPGR ever experienced harassment when crossing the land border on a weekend trip to Canada and being interrogated for two hours because the border officers cannot believe that two men can be married overseas and visit one partner's family in the US? Has he ever been accused of attempting to have the partner stay illegally - even though we have documents to prove our current jobs and residency in a foreign country and my partner has never overstayed a visa?
Does the POSPGR know what it feels like when his partner denied a simple long-stay visa because the US does not recognize his relationship, while all the straight people at the embassy that day got their partners permanent resident visas without question - even if some of the relationships are quite visibly fake?
Confronting these issues openly is the only way this situation is going to change. This guy should have to deal with this the same way that we all are forced to deal with it - by making some tough choices. What kind of love is it that allows one partner to put the other partner in the position of breaking the law? A stupid and unfair law that needs to change, but a law nevertheless. I have been able to make my relationship work with my partner without breaking the law by moving to my partner's country - if he is really in love then this guy should have to make the same sacrifices that the rest of us face.
POSPGR is a douche bag and is not helping the cause (or his partner) with his actions.
2
Out the motherfucker already. His partner is here legally. He's just *working* here illegally. He (or they) obviously has enough money to fly in and out of the US, so they've got enough money to deal with any fallout from the spectacular outing this is going to be.
3
First of all, I'm one of the people affected by this -- I live outside the USA away from my partner only because I have no other option. The amount of pain and misery caused to me is indescribable. Every day I wonder if things will work out.
That said, I wonder if there are any Hispanic Christians with skeletons in their closets? We can play this game too, especially if driven to despair in a hopeless situation.
Also, I know where you are coming from Dan, but I think the anti-gay playbook isn't working totally according to plan. People care too much about their jobs and the economy -- this social conservative bullshit is pissing people off because they feel it was used by Bush etc. to distract people from the real fiscal and other issues that now threaten to overwhelm the country. And even though you hate the Tea Party, I personally know quite a few who detest bigotry and are OBSESSED with reining in the state.
Fingers crossed gays don't get tossed out of any legislation. Fingers crossed.
That said, I wonder if there are any Hispanic Christians with skeletons in their closets? We can play this game too, especially if driven to despair in a hopeless situation.
Also, I know where you are coming from Dan, but I think the anti-gay playbook isn't working totally according to plan. People care too much about their jobs and the economy -- this social conservative bullshit is pissing people off because they feel it was used by Bush etc. to distract people from the real fiscal and other issues that now threaten to overwhelm the country. And even though you hate the Tea Party, I personally know quite a few who detest bigotry and are OBSESSED with reining in the state.
Fingers crossed gays don't get tossed out of any legislation. Fingers crossed.
4
@robwolf -- You are not alone (literally). I wish people knew how horrible this situation is and what it does to you, how it grinds you down.
5
"I don't want him publicly identified if it results in his boyfriend being deported..."
Hmmm... I'd like to see this politician's voting record before deciding this.
Hmmm... I'd like to see this politician's voting record before deciding this.
7
I have to say that I'm with both 1 and 5 on this. I would definitely like to know the guys voting record before I wanted to ruin his relationship and fuck his partner (figuratively). However, even if he has never voted against equal rights I think it's important that Republicans see that some people they respect and vote for are gay to further the understanding that gays really aren't any different than straights.
Besides, I think it's extremely unlikely that any "prominent Republican" has become prominent by voting for gay rights.
Besides, I think it's extremely unlikely that any "prominent Republican" has become prominent by voting for gay rights.
8
Love did make this pol a single-issue voter...love of mammon, that is. OTMFA. With their apparent means, I'm sure the couple will land on the feet (perhaps in Canada, Spain, Argentina, Mexico, etc.)
9
Since when is gay rights and being a Repbublican mutually exclusive? If you examine the facts, instead of swallowing the biased diatribe that Dan spews out, you’ll see that Republicans are only a centimeter worse than Dems on our rights. Same sex marriage is being decided by the courts and the electorate. The president steadfastly believes that marriages should only be between a man and a woman. DADT is not being dismantled by Obama. Our economy is in ruins, partly because gays are brainwashed into believing that they can only vote for the party that gives them better lip service – not what is better for the pocketbooks and their country’s prosperity and security.
10
I'm confused. I thought the only issues with gay marriage conservatives had was over the word.
and other than that they want gays to have all the rights straights do.
As long as we don't have to slightly modify the cultural understanding of a word ( again) then Jesus will be happy because he's the one who has to update all the dictionaries.
right?
and other than that they want gays to have all the rights straights do.
As long as we don't have to slightly modify the cultural understanding of a word ( again) then Jesus will be happy because he's the one who has to update all the dictionaries.
right?
11
"Our economy is in ruins, partly because gays are brainwashed into believing that they can only vote for the party that gives them better lip service – not what is better for the pocketbooks and their country’s prosperity and security. "
Whenever democrats vote democratic they've been "brainwashed." And yet republicans are the ones with glenn beck and fox news.
Whenever democrats vote democratic they've been "brainwashed." And yet republicans are the ones with glenn beck and fox news.
13
Dude, raindrop, I don't know where you've been for the last ten years, but it was the Republican party that drove the economy into the ground and pursued an insane foreign policy, undermining America's prosperity and security for a generation.
Now that the grown-ups are in charge, economic recovery, troop withdrawals and, yes, advances in gay rights, are all possible (and all in fact underway). With a Republican majority in Congress, these things all become political impossibilities.
better for the pocketbooks and their country’s prosperity and security
Dude, raindrop, I don't know where you've been for the last ten years, but it was the Republican party that drove the economy into the ground and pursued an insane foreign policy, undermining America's prosperity and security for a generation.
Now that the grown-ups are in charge, economic recovery, troop withdrawals and, yes, advances in gay rights, are all possible (and all in fact underway). With a Republican majority in Congress, these things all become political impossibilities.
14
Count me in as wanting his voting record before I approve of his status being revealed.
I do have to say though that...how much of a masochist do you have to be? An out gay man with a closet-case is bad enough. Being the gay latino lover of a man who is not only in the closet, but campaigns actively for a party that hates your sexuality AND your nationality? ¡Eso no es amor, eso es estar tonto!
I do have to say though that...how much of a masochist do you have to be? An out gay man with a closet-case is bad enough. Being the gay latino lover of a man who is not only in the closet, but campaigns actively for a party that hates your sexuality AND your nationality? ¡Eso no es amor, eso es estar tonto!
15
We know his voting record. He's a Republican in the closet. That means he's probably PUBLICLY came out AGAINST gay marriage. He's probably sponsored legislation AGAINST gay adoption. He's almost certainly one of the Republicans threatening to VOTE AGAINST this immigration reform package. Without a doubt, he's butching up and "fighting the gays" to keep his status within the party. It's how they all do it. I mean, to hear it now, 3/4ths of the Bush administration now supports gay marriage, but when it was politically expedient they turned us in to child-raping demons in the public's eye to keep themselves in power. Now that they are "private citizens", they don't seem to mind so much cock-sucking.
Outing him will do no good. He'll resign in disgrace while all the straight but kinky Republicans get forgiveness from Jesus and another fat donation from Goldman Sachs/BP. We need to put pressure on DEMOCRATS not to cave so easily on LGBT issues.
Outing him will do no good. He'll resign in disgrace while all the straight but kinky Republicans get forgiveness from Jesus and another fat donation from Goldman Sachs/BP. We need to put pressure on DEMOCRATS not to cave so easily on LGBT issues.
16
If "prominent" means what I think it does ("rich"), then it makes perfect sense if you remember that the core GOP belief is that there should be a different set of rules for rich people.
17
I'll say since 1986, when the Reagan Administration blocked a Surgeon General's report on AIDS that advocated education and condom use. They'd been ignoring AIDS for years, as God's judgment on the sinful fags, but suppressing that report was willful murder.
If you are too young to remember, then read a fucking book. And recognize that the dominant forces in the Republican party haven't changed. Where do you think the "Abstinence Only" movement came from? It was born directly from AIDS denialism. The fact that it oppresses women, too, is gravy for these people.
You may be fiscally right-wing, and a foreign policy hawk, but you should understand that the culture wars are real, and that some of the most powerful constituencies of the Republican party want you dead.
Ever wonder why you don't see a lot of gay men over 50? Because they got their way with 300,000 of us in the 1980s.
Since when is gay rights and being a Republican mutually exclusive?
I'll say since 1986, when the Reagan Administration blocked a Surgeon General's report on AIDS that advocated education and condom use. They'd been ignoring AIDS for years, as God's judgment on the sinful fags, but suppressing that report was willful murder.
If you are too young to remember, then read a fucking book. And recognize that the dominant forces in the Republican party haven't changed. Where do you think the "Abstinence Only" movement came from? It was born directly from AIDS denialism. The fact that it oppresses women, too, is gravy for these people.
You may be fiscally right-wing, and a foreign policy hawk, but you should understand that the culture wars are real, and that some of the most powerful constituencies of the Republican party want you dead.
Ever wonder why you don't see a lot of gay men over 50? Because they got their way with 300,000 of us in the 1980s.
18
I agree with Dan. I don't want an innocent gay person the victim. The problem is the innocent gay person is already a victim of his partners party affiliation. A party that is bigoted and homophobic and actively works to deny gay people rights.
19
OTMFA. He can use some of his money to go visit his boyfriend. Maybe the pain/inconvenience/expense/fundamental unfairness of the situation will help bring him around.
20
BABH, Reagan ignored AIDS - more because it was tricky political trap that the White House didn't want to be bothered by it rather than anything sinister. If you recall, despite Reagan’s (and I agree, unforgivable) neglect of AIDS – he enjoyed support from the gay community in his ’84 reelection. I remember seeing a gay float for his re-election in the Seattle gay pride parade. Why? Well, things were getting better economically.
I can’t negate several of your points; however, think of it this way: -- it’s not only the politicians in Washington D.C. that need to be bi-partisan to get things done (including GLBT rights) – it’s also a responsibility for the citizenry as well.
I can’t negate several of your points; however, think of it this way: -- it’s not only the politicians in Washington D.C. that need to be bi-partisan to get things done (including GLBT rights) – it’s also a responsibility for the citizenry as well.
21
Yeah, no. Surgeon General Koop wanted to tackle the issue in a responsible way, through education and awareness campaigns. Education Secretary Bill Bennett wanted to keep the fundamentalists happy. Reagan made the decision to let the gays keep dying, like his base wanted.
And the haters are still the core constituency of the Republican party. Bi-partisanship? We don't need to work with these people, and negotiate our rights away. We need to defeat them, at the polls, in the courts, in the public square.
Reagan ignored AIDS - more because it was tricky political trap that the White House didn't want to be bothered by it rather than anything sinister.
Yeah, no. Surgeon General Koop wanted to tackle the issue in a responsible way, through education and awareness campaigns. Education Secretary Bill Bennett wanted to keep the fundamentalists happy. Reagan made the decision to let the gays keep dying, like his base wanted.
And the haters are still the core constituency of the Republican party. Bi-partisanship? We don't need to work with these people, and negotiate our rights away. We need to defeat them, at the polls, in the courts, in the public square.
25
American citizen, 40s, very open-minded single mom with two kids at home but unable to bear more children, seeks generous, well-to-do, foreign-born gentleman for true love and marriage.
26
@21:
Including Ted Olson, the conservative Republican who argued for Bush in Bush v. Gore and Solicitor General, who recently argued successfully and eloquently for same-sex marriage in CA? Including Ann Coulter, who despite her venom is not against same-sex marriage? Including Newt Gingrich? Including Dick Cheney? I can go on. But go ahead and continue to lick your wounds from those nasty Republicans.
And the haters are still the core constituency of the Republican party.
Including Ted Olson, the conservative Republican who argued for Bush in Bush v. Gore and Solicitor General, who recently argued successfully and eloquently for same-sex marriage in CA? Including Ann Coulter, who despite her venom is not against same-sex marriage? Including Newt Gingrich? Including Dick Cheney? I can go on. But go ahead and continue to lick your wounds from those nasty Republicans.
28
@17,
For the record, raindrop has made it pretty clear that he thinks of women only as chattel. His alliance with Republicanism is not isolated to fiscal "responsibility" or iron fist "diplomacy."
For the record, raindrop has made it pretty clear that he thinks of women only as chattel. His alliance with Republicanism is not isolated to fiscal "responsibility" or iron fist "diplomacy."
29
No, raindrop, I'm not thinking of Karl "my dad's gay, but fuck the gay vote" Rove's 2004 strategy, which was to gain 4 million evangelical votes by throwing the Log Cabin Republicans overboard. Or Dick "my daughter's gay and I support marriage equality" Cheney presiding over a Republican push for a Federal Marriage Amendment without speaking out. Or Ann "I'll call anyone a faggot if it gets me more money and attention" Coulter.
No, I'm thinking of the other wing of the Republican party. The James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Bill Bennett wing. The ones who openly advocate putting gays in concentration camps. They are real, even if you choose to ignore them. They have about 25% of the electorate behind them, so control about 1/2 the party. Republican candidates cannot win without pandering to them, which is fine by most Republican candidates.
I'm thinking of the faction of the Republican party that produces members of Congress like Jesse Helms, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, etc., etc.
You can't pretend they don't exist. If you want to be a gay Republican, fine, but you have to make your peace with them. Don't be surprised that most gay Americans aren't willing to join you in compromising their rights and values.
No, I'm thinking of the other wing of the Republican party. The James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Bill Bennett wing. The ones who openly advocate putting gays in concentration camps. They are real, even if you choose to ignore them. They have about 25% of the electorate behind them, so control about 1/2 the party. Republican candidates cannot win without pandering to them, which is fine by most Republican candidates.
I'm thinking of the faction of the Republican party that produces members of Congress like Jesse Helms, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, etc., etc.
You can't pretend they don't exist. If you want to be a gay Republican, fine, but you have to make your peace with them. Don't be surprised that most gay Americans aren't willing to join you in compromising their rights and values.
30
@28: Thanks keshmeshi. I'll stop feeding the troll. Feels good to vent now and then, though. And I do feel that we need to be more aggressive in shaming anyone who stands up to be counted with the violent bigots of the right.
31
At least with Democrats, the long arc of history IS tilting toward justice...with the majority of Republicans (that are in a position to make laws or amass crowds with pitchforks), I think it would go the other way. I am not necessarily anti-fiscal conservatism, but am definitely anti-hate.
33
And another thing: "fiscal conservatism" gets unfairly associated with the Republican party, just because they have branded themselves as the "conservative" party. In fact, Democratic administrations are, historically, more fiscally responsible.
So you get massive budget deficits under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, and Democrats have to be brought in to get the house in order.
So you get massive budget deficits under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, and Democrats have to be brought in to get the house in order.
34
Dan, whatever you're smoking, switch it.
Out him, and deport his illegally working boyfriend for IRAIRA violations and make sure the SOB can't get back into the US for at least 10 years. He wrote the fucking law, he can deal with the consequences.
Out him, and deport his illegally working boyfriend for IRAIRA violations and make sure the SOB can't get back into the US for at least 10 years. He wrote the fucking law, he can deal with the consequences.
35
Regarding whether the "prominent" Republican should/should not be outed, well I agree with both sides. Certainly if he is a prominent "Repugnantan" I'd be much more on the side of outing the bitch motherfucking asshole.
Its easy to be righteous; good thing there are brave souls like Dan looking out for those in jeopardy irrespective of the actions of others.
Its easy to be righteous; good thing there are brave souls like Dan looking out for those in jeopardy irrespective of the actions of others.
36
Regarding whether the "prominent" Republican should/should not be outed, well I agree with both sides. Certainly if he is a prominent "Repugnantan" I'd be much more on the side of outing the bitch motherfucking asshole.
Its easy to be righteous; good thing there are brave souls like Dan looking out for those in jeopardy irrespective of the actions of others.
Its easy to be righteous; good thing there are brave souls like Dan looking out for those in jeopardy irrespective of the actions of others.
39
The UK - and many other EU countries who have same-sex marriage - recognize legal partnerships made in US States that offer them to same-sex couples. So if you were legally married in California and your partner got a job that meant re-locating to London, you would be able to move with them.
You wouldn't be able to work, but we don't let straight wives and husbands either.
If the tables were reversed, a British, gay, married citizen would not legally be able to take their partner with them taking up a job in the US.
You wouldn't be able to work, but we don't let straight wives and husbands either.
If the tables were reversed, a British, gay, married citizen would not legally be able to take their partner with them taking up a job in the US.
40
Ummm, well yea, Dan isn't gonna advocate for the "prominent"'s outing. At Dan Savage's level of celebrity, you just don't do that. You leave it to the rabble, like the people posting here, to call for it. Meantime, I bet Dan has had the name of the closeted guy long ago. By this time, I bet the latino b.f. is on very thin ice w his s.o.
41
BABH, thanks for keeping up the good fight. raindrop--sure you aren't some darker, second personality of Will in Seattle? Because you seem to be a deluded shithead.
42
What makes it even more galling is the "prominent Republican" had no problem speaking to a reporter. In other words, the guy was eager to whine and yet knew that his identity would be hidden. That is about as sick as it gets - even worse than Mehlman. This guy is ASKING for extra gay rights while simultaneously fighting against them. At least Mehlman was purportedly single.
43
ahh- the LCR's are just like raindrop- 'you can be a jew and nazi without any crisis of conscience. Oh quick- look what Obama's done now'.
Brother. I hate the Dems and their give away the store mentality, but I hated Bush and the Rethuglicans for 8 long years far worse. I'll be damned if I'll vote for any politician who supports FocusOF and ilk's desires to see us stoned like the bible says to. Self-hating doesn't begin to describe their whole twisted logic.
Brother. I hate the Dems and their give away the store mentality, but I hated Bush and the Rethuglicans for 8 long years far worse. I'll be damned if I'll vote for any politician who supports FocusOF and ilk's desires to see us stoned like the bible says to. Self-hating doesn't begin to describe their whole twisted logic.
45
I'm not buying this for a second. Nothing but a red herring. There is no prominent Republican politician living with this situation. This is one of those stories that starts out as a backroom joke and somehow takes on an internet life of its own. This is not a secret that would, or could be kept especially if the individual is truly prominent in politics.
46
OTMFA. Do you think the Republicans would hesitate for one second if this were a prominent Democrat?
47
I know him - he's already out (he's never been in the closet), he's not "prominent" unless you are really, really, really into gay Republican politics, he's never been an elected official...this is a wild goose chase...
49
@ 20 - More ammo for you, raindrop: When Reagan was gov. of CA (during Harvey Milk's time), he publicly opposed the Briggs Amendment, which would have prohibited GLBT folks from being schoolteachers. Said, "This will needlessly hurt people." Maybe not an exact quote, but pretty close.
The takeover of the Republican party by the "Christian conservatives" (not really conservatives at all) goes back to the latter half of the 70's. They tried to latch onto Jimmy Carter, but didn't like his liberal politics (of course). Reagan was their baby, that was their foot in the door. The Republican party has been fucked ever since.
The takeover of the Republican party by the "Christian conservatives" (not really conservatives at all) goes back to the latter half of the 70's. They tried to latch onto Jimmy Carter, but didn't like his liberal politics (of course). Reagan was their baby, that was their foot in the door. The Republican party has been fucked ever since.
52
(HUMOR) NEWS FLASH PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS JUST RELEASED THIS EDICT! ALL ILLEAGLE REPUBLICANS WILL BE DEPORTED IMMEDIATELY!
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Listen Up, Gays: They're Coming to Recruit You by Cienna Madrid
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (52) RSS