Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Log Cabin Republicans Endorse Romney—Can I Get Away With Calling Them House Maggots?

Posted by on Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:49 AM

Yesterday we got this from the Romney campaign:

Mitt Romney’s campaign seemed to flip-flop last week on whether he supports an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage, but the convoluted clarification demonstrated that his positions on the issue are purely political and as insensitive as ever. After last week’s debate, campaign senior adviser Bay Buchanan told The Advocate that Romney opposes marriage equality, but that “it’s a state issue” and that Romney “would not get in the way of what states decide to do on marriage and adoption.” As Buzzfeed pointed out, this seemed very much to conflict with the candidate’s pledge to pass a federal marriage amendment and institute a three-tier system, allowing married same-sex couples to stay married, but not new couples to get married. Buchanan clarified on Saturday that Romney does still support such an amendment.

"Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman," said Buchanan. "Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children."

So yesterday the Romney campaign not only reiterated its support for amending the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, which would result in the forcible divorce of tens of thousands of legally-married same-sex couples in seven states and the District of Columbia, the Romney camp also described a gay man's ability to be at his husband's bedside during a medical emergency as a "benefit"—a little treat, a special favor—and not a right. Same goes for you dykes. If candidate Mitt Romney believes that the states should decide if gays and lesbians can enjoy the "benefit" of hospital visitation rights, then a President Romney will have to rescind a 2010 executive order signed by President Obama that requires all hospitals that receive federal funds—and that's all hospitals—to recognize same-sex relationships and treat same-sex partners as family members and next-of-kin.

This is what happens to same-sex couples in states that don't recognize our relationships:

When a loved one is in the hospital, you naturally want to be at the bedside. But what if the staff won’t allow it? That’s what Janice Langbehn, a social worker in Lacey, Wash., says she experienced when her partner of 18 years, Lisa Pond, collapsed with an aneurysm during a Florida vacation and was taken to a Miami trauma center. She died there, at age 39, as Ms. Langbehn tried in vain to persuade hospital officials to let her visit, along with the couple’s adopted children.... Ms. Langbehn says that a hospital social worker informed her that she was in an “antigay city and state” and that she would need a health care proxy to get information.... Despite repeated requests to see her partner, Ms. Langbehn says she was given just one five-minute visit, when a priest administered last rites. She says she continued to plead with a hospital worker that the children be allowed to see their mother, even showing the children’s birth certificates. “I said to the receptionist, ‘Look, they’re her kids,’ ” Ms. Langbehn said.

Lisa Pond was conscious when she was admitted to the trauma center. By the time her spouse and children were allowed to see her, Lisa Pond was brain dead. Pond's children and Pond's spouse were prevented from saying goodbye to her—no last words, no final embraces, no one there to hold Pond's hand and say "I love you" to her as she lay dying. Yesterday Mitt Romney promised to return us to this: hospitals in "anti-gay states" having the power to inflict unnecessary emotional pain on dying queers and their spouses. Under a President Romney children will be prevented from saying goodbye to their dying parents—if their parents are gay or lesbian and unlucky enough to fall ill in "anti-gay states."

And today we get this:

Log Cabin Republicans, the largest national group representing gay Republicans, announced its endorsement of Mitt Romney for president Tuesday, saying the decision shows, “We are Americans first.”

What he said:

"The Log Cabin Republicans have proven once and for all that they are not an organization aligned with the LGBT movement. They are a Republican front group bumbling their way into fooling LGBT voters that it's OK to support a party that would legislate us back into the closet. Their endorsement of Mitt Romney isn't just shameful—it's insulting.... It's reprehensible. Have they no decency?"—Jerame Davis, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats.

They do not. Not a shred. Maggots.


Comments (60) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
what is a log cabin republican?
Posted by jeffy on October 23, 2012 at 8:58 AM · Report this
emma's bee 2
I prefer Log Cabin Termites. Insidiously shredding Lincoln's principles.
Posted by emma's bee on October 23, 2012 at 9:04 AM · Report this
sperifera 3
That makes Gay Dude for Romney a maggot as well. Some day he'll come out of his pupae phase and become a fly. Fly away, little GDfR! All the way back to Stockholm!
Posted by sperifera on October 23, 2012 at 9:06 AM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 4
So, Romney says gay marriage is a "States Issue" and the log cabin republicans endorse him, saying "We're Americans first."

Does anyone else see the contradiction there?
Posted by Urgutha Forka on October 23, 2012 at 9:13 AM · Report this
The obvious rejoinder would be that the unfortunate incident involving Ms Langbehn and Ms Pond occurred during the Obama administration. The reality is that the president doesn't have much power over such things. Still, it is hard to see how any gay person could support a candidate who employs Pat Buchanan's sister as a senior adviser.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on October 23, 2012 at 9:17 AM · Report this
monkey 6
LCR endorsing Romney... shocker!
Posted by monkey on October 23, 2012 at 9:19 AM · Report this
Dan Savage needlessly restrained himself from not bringing up Romney's forcible haircuts to suspected gay classmates.
Posted by chemchampion on October 23, 2012 at 9:20 AM · Report this
Can you get away with calling them 'house maggots'? As usual, you'll be taken to task by the usual suspects (the house maggots, the right, the 'phobes) over your strong language. They're just oversensitive (most bigots are). But really, 'maggot' is nice, and colorful, and has a couple of hard consonants that make it fun to say in derision: "Maggot!"

I like.
Posted by slothrop on October 23, 2012 at 9:27 AM · Report this
Gay Dude for Romney 9
The celebration of diversity does not allow diversity of political thought, no matter the diversity of our sexual identity and expression. Always has, always will.

Posted by Gay Dude for Romney on October 23, 2012 at 9:28 AM · Report this
@5: Actually, that incident occurred in February 2007.

From the article:
"As recounted by Ms. Langbehn, the details of the Miami episode are harrowing. It began in February 2007, when the family — including three children, then ages 9, 11 and 13 — traveled there for a cruise."
Posted by digitalwitch on October 23, 2012 at 9:32 AM · Report this
@9 Diversity of political thought is fine, but supporting a political party that hates you is pretty fucking stupid.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on October 23, 2012 at 9:33 AM · Report this
kim in portland 12

Ms. Pond died in February 2007. Which party controled the White House...?
Posted by kim in portland on October 23, 2012 at 9:33 AM · Report this
reverend dr dj riz 13
@9 the celebration of diversity welcomes the diversity of political thought but it does not allow for self hatred , self deception, liars, thieves, swindlers and murderers.never has, NEVER will.
Posted by reverend dr dj riz on October 23, 2012 at 9:35 AM · Report this
Lissa 14
@9: Opression is not "diversity of political thought". They don't like you, they don't want you, and they don't think you are an American citizen deserving full civil liberties and rights. You can kiss their asses from now until kingdom come and all you will ever get is a face full of farts.
Posted by Lissa on October 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM · Report this
@9 When you can't tell the difference between diversity and stupidity, then diversity doesn't have any value.
Posted by SLCamper on October 23, 2012 at 9:39 AM · Report this
@10 & 12 OK, I was wrong about that, but my general point still stands, the president doesn't have much power over such things.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on October 23, 2012 at 9:40 AM · Report this
Real maggots have some integrity, some purpose, even some uses to people.

Can't say the same about the Log Cabin Republicans.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on October 23, 2012 at 9:44 AM · Report this
Gay Dude for Romney 18
Hatred. Wow.

I tell you what hatred is. Hatred is four years of an anemic economy, hatred is 5 trillion added to our national debut, hatred having a president playing politics with national security, hatred is a president who refuses to acknowledge the threat of radical jihad, hatred is a president who picks and chooses who gets the benefit of his crony capitalism, hatred is compelling religious institutions to provide contraception when it violates their religious principles, hatred is a president who barely tolerates capitalism, above all HATRED IS A PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T LOVE AMERICA.

I don't need warm and fuzzies from a president. I just want a president that's qualified to do the job. Mitt Romney is that man.

Posted by Gay Dude for Romney on October 23, 2012 at 9:52 AM · Report this
bleedingheartlibertarian 19
Fortunately, a Federal Marriage Amendment is never actually going to happen. The hurdles to changing the Constitution are (thankfully for the most part) almost impossibly high. It is unimaginable to me that any issue in which the country is divided nigh in half could even come close.

But of course, the consequences of such a thing that Dan points out are absolutely would be an incredibly cruel shift in family law.

And that's why when someone who supports this kind of policy tells me that they don't have a problem with gay people, I tell them to their face that I do not believe them.
Posted by bleedingheartlibertarian on October 23, 2012 at 9:54 AM · Report this
Fortunate 20
@16, actually the president does. Obama has made it mandatory for all hospitals receiving federal funds (as Dan pointed out, that is ALL hospitals) to allow hospital visitation to same sex couples. That means that what happened to those two women in 2007 is now illegal.

Romney wants to reverse that and allow such things to happen again.

Log Cabin Republicans are a bunch of fucking morons. I was starting to have some respect for them after the part they played in the repeal of DADT, but now any credibility they have earned is out the window.

Termites indeed. Eating away their own rights and future because they think it will profit their pocketbooks.
Posted by Fortunate on October 23, 2012 at 9:57 AM · Report this
Pick1 21
@6 Believe it or not, I am slightly surprised by this. LCR have been gay advocates for quite some time and in 2004 I believe they refused to endorse Bush. GOProud are a bunch of little closet fags who put their party above their own human rights, but LCR have actually showed a smidgen of integrity on occasion.

Choosing not to endorse Romney would've at least given them some credence of respectability, even if they didn't go as far as endorsing Obama.

It just goes to show priorities and personally, I find it mind boggling that Civil Rights Issues fall behind Economic ones in some people's minds.

"You can treat me as a second class citizen as long as I end up making more money and pay fewer taxes."
Posted by Pick1 on October 23, 2012 at 10:02 AM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 22
It's interesting what bed rock American values some people will compromise or dismiss and then say, "we are Americans first." Civil Equality is a bed rock American value, yet the LCR are willing to dispense with that in the interests of what, keeping gas prices low, reducing taxes for the rich, bombing Iran.

How pleased will they be with Romney when he attempts legislation that denies Gay citizens the few civil rights they now enjoy.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on October 23, 2012 at 10:05 AM · Report this
@20 Stop clouding the issue w/ fact.

@5 Who was in the White House back in 2007? Like all loyal Republicans I've forgotten the man's name, but he enacted Medicare Part D and favored amnesty for illegal aliens so he couldn't have been one of our people.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on October 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM · Report this
Pick1 24
@18 "Mitt Romney is that man"

Which Mitt Romney? Conservative Mitt? Moderate Mitt? Liberal Mitt? Which Mitt is the man to fix the economy.

Moreover, GDfR, please refer to the last sentence of my comment @21. Romney will ROLL BACK your civil rights. I suppose if you're willing to be degraded in hopes that Romney's economic plan (as flawed as everyone with half a brain finds it) you go ahead and be his little whore, I hope he gives you a big damn tip.
Posted by Pick1 on October 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM · Report this
sperifera 25
@18 - Maggots are blind in their pupal state, so we'll give you a break on this one. You sir, are a maggot on the gay community.
Posted by sperifera on October 23, 2012 at 10:09 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 26
@ 18, that is so far wrong that I don't even know what else to say.

Whether you're the genuine article (an honest to goodness gay man who supports Mitt Romney) or not (a shill in the employ of the Mitt Romney campaign, the GOP, or an allied 527), that is the biggest statement of falsehood I've ever seen on Slog.

Don't bother asking for a rebuttal. There's no point in giving you one.
Posted by Matt from Denver on October 23, 2012 at 10:11 AM · Report this
Gay Dude for Romney 27
@24: The president has no power to roll back anyone's rights.

Let's suppose the president hated all redheads. He couldn't even propose a constitutional amendment. He couldn't even veto a constitutional amendment. Presidents proposes, Congress disposes.

Yes, he can appoint justices to the SCOTUS, but they must pass Senate confirmation. Those that do pass, have to be well versed in our constitution which affords us our liberty.

Posted by Gay Dude for Romney on October 23, 2012 at 10:21 AM · Report this
mikethehammer 28
"We are Americans first."

That's the problem right there and it's hardly restricted to the gay rights spectrum. We're freaking human beings first and the myopic viewpoints of Republicans just doesn't recognize that fact. How or why is it hard? Idiots.

I remember when I was 10 or 12 years old returning from a camping trip and ditching a cooler with some food remnants next to our house & forgetting about it. When I went to retrieve it a few weeks later I found it absolutely covered in maggots and a (literally!) gag inducing, repugnant odor. They're really revolting & wonderfully abhorrent specimens. I approve of the term.
Posted by mikethehammer on October 23, 2012 at 10:29 AM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 29
#18 makes great points. Of course Obama HATES America, he was born in Kenya. He's a socialist, we all know that he studied in Moscow at the Institute of Marxist Thought. And of course Obama plays the "crony capitalism" game, look at the billions he gave Wall Street banks (Bush did that? Oh never mind). Bain Capital on the other hand is the model of social compassion, all those poor Chinese people being show the LOVE of Romney getting those jobs taken from Americans. Now THAT'S Love, Romney style.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on October 23, 2012 at 10:30 AM · Report this
Fnarf 30
Gay Dude For Romney sounds like he's heading for a psychological break. Pretty erratic stuff there. "A PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T LOVE AMERICA" is wacko territory for sure. I hope he's being kept well away from firearms.

The real Log Cabin Republican point of view is "we don't need legal rights, because we are rich and white, and if you're rich and white in America, you already have everything you could need". Dick Cheney's daughter isn't ever going to be kept from any hospital bedsides, and probably neither is GDFR. The Republican motto is "I've got mine, Jack, so fuck you", after all.
Posted by Fnarf on October 23, 2012 at 10:40 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 31
@ 27, "those that do pass have to be well versed in our constitution which affords us our liberty."

Tell that to Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Two people on the current court who prove you wrong. Especially Thomas.
Posted by Matt from Denver on October 23, 2012 at 10:42 AM · Report this
amyl 32
Just to play devil's advocate, I know I wasn't the only one holding my nose a little when I voted for Obama due to his stated view of marriage being between one man and one woman. The Log Cabin Republicans are making the same bet that I did, that their canidate's stated views to win votes are not the views he actually holds. That being said, if Mitt Romney wins (god forbid) he will have to deliver on some promises he made to a super conservative base to get re-elected, and what if the promise he delivers on is to stomp on the civil rights of gay people? Not worth the risk, even if you do like the 20% tax cut Romney keeps crowing about.
Posted by amyl on October 23, 2012 at 10:50 AM · Report this
venomlash 33
@2: Exactly what I thought. Only, a la Romney, I would have thought of it sooner and better than you did.
@10, 12: Don't matter, Republicans would still blame it on Obama.
@27: A Constitutional amendment oppressing redheads would never make it through, because hating on people for their pigmentation hasn't been cool in this country for fifty years. Nearly half the country (and shrinking yearly, praise the Lord) still thinks it's perfectly acceptable to make people second-class-citizens because of who they love.
Posted by venomlash on October 23, 2012 at 11:09 AM · Report this
"We are Americans first."

That argument might have some validity if the choice really were between one side who were great on social issues, but incompetent whackjobs when it came to other issues - external affairs, economy, environment, etc, and another with a less than stellar social issues record, but who had sound, proven, sensible and workable policies on other important issues.
Posted by agony on October 23, 2012 at 11:09 AM · Report this
Gay Dude for Romney 35
@30: Oh Knarf, if only you had your wish and just rich whites voted for Romney, Alabama would be a solid blue state as would Wyoming.
And we have never heard this president profess his love for America, only that he wanted to totally transform it. I hope you share in his hopes for his transformative vision, only nobody knows where that will lead us. I hope you enjoy skipping down that path Knarf, should Woodrow win a second term.
Posted by Gay Dude for Romney on October 23, 2012 at 11:14 AM · Report this
I'm still waiting for Gay Dude to say something pro-Romney, rather than something anti-Obama.
Posted by SLCamper on October 23, 2012 at 11:37 AM · Report this
@35 what Alabama have you been to? There's plenty of poor people and racial mixing there.

As for President Obama proclaiming his love for America...I don't think it ever occurs to him because his actions speak far more loudly than his words.
He loves America enough to suffer masses of hate and bile spewed at him as he tries to keep her a premier nation in the world.
He loves America enough to risk assassination while he hops all over the world trying to broker world peace.
He loves America enough to give up an extremely lucrative law practice to take a pay cut to take on the white collar job that has possibly the lowest job satisfaction in the world.
He loves America enough that his beloved family has had to take second place (and if you dare say his daughters aren't negatively affected by this, we'll all know you're criminally insane) to crazy hours and all sorts of traveling.
And he even loves America enough to protect the rights of maggots like you, who revile him and say that his term has hurt America. I'd say that's an awful lot of love.
Posted by ladyrockess on October 23, 2012 at 11:38 AM · Report this
Fnarf 38
@35, I didn't say only rich whites support Romney, obviously; I said that the only gays who support Romney are rich and white, because they, by virtue of being rich and white, are immune from the legal and economic penalties of being gay. As for Alabama, it's mostly fear of Negroes, and a powerful desire to formulate a state government based entirely on a fear of Negroes, that motivates them. That and the massive subsidies that the blue states send their way, of course. Nobody sucks up federal welfare money like Republicans.
Posted by Fnarf on October 23, 2012 at 11:42 AM · Report this
@27 "@24: The president has no power to roll back anyone's rights."

As a civics class truism, you're absolutely correct.

However, as Anarchists and Libertarians often hand-wave past: Having Rights is not the same as securing or enjoying your rights.

There is a patch work of Constitutional dictates, Laws and Policies that are to protect you from infringement of those rights.

Many of the recent protections for those classes of people described by Sexual Orientation, Gender Expression and the like, are only policies and Mitt Romney can and almost assuredly would roll those fuckers back with a quickness.
Posted by I Miss Having A Legitimate Second Party on October 23, 2012 at 11:46 AM · Report this
blip 40
@18, The President hates America and capitalism *so much* he's driving the whole damn thing into the ditch on purpose! Good grief. For some reason I never thought you were one of THOSE Republicans. Do you really believe these things you say or are you just burnt out and grasping for the nearest AM radio talking points?

There is nothing remotely reasonable about anything you just said. Moreover, there is nothing remotely relevant about it. This isn't about Obama; it's about Romney, the Republican Party, and their regressive stance on equality. As a gay Republican you have here both the opportunity and the audience to defend your case, and instead you choose to divert to a bunch of unrelated, half-baked cheap-shots against the president. You are among the very few who are qualified to handle this issue and you can't do it.
Posted by blip on October 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM · Report this
@37 I couldn't agree more, although "He loves America enough to risk assassination while he hops all over the world trying to broker world peace." is worth unpacking, as I'd argue that Obama is at least a full order of magnitude more likely to suffer an assassination attempt from an American group or individual.
Posted by I Miss Having A Legitimate Second Party on October 23, 2012 at 11:53 AM · Report this
Oh, @35 - if I were in Alabama I'd say "Bless your heart ...". As for your statement that "his transformative vision, only nobody knows where that will lead us" -- please put the Fox News crack pipe down. He's been President for FOUR FUCKING YEARS. Believing that things will suddenly, drastically change on November 7th is almost as blatantly stupid as endorsing someone who doesn't think you deserve the same rights as my hetero partner & I.

Posted by jhops on October 23, 2012 at 11:58 AM · Report this
McJulie 43
In the current era, there's only one truly rational reason to support the Republican: because you think he will make you more money. Maybe you're already very wealthy, and this supposition is callous, but correct. Or maybe you're not wealthy, but Republicans are historically better for your chosen field (military contracts, etc.). Or maybe you're incorrect, but still rational, such as the many people who seem to think that Republicans are generically better for the economy, or small business.

Every other reason to support the Republican is some form of psychodrama. Tribalism, self-hatred, existential anxiety, religious brainwashing, whatever. Powerful driving forces, but not rational. So, you poke them, and a bunch of emo blathering comes out.

That's the only explanation I can come up with for @18. "HATRED IS A PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T LOVE AMERICA" followed immediately by "I don't need warm and fuzzies from a president," and complaints about a president practicing "crony capitalism" followed immediately by complaints about a president who "barely tolerates capitalism."

Although I can see why a gay dude might think it's "hatred" to expect the health insurance offered by religious employers to provide birth control.
Posted by McJulie on October 23, 2012 at 12:06 PM · Report this
Phoebe in Wallingford 44
Theoretically, I suppose, it's good for minority groups to have a presence in the "big tent" party, and if you're not for their nominee, well, then you can't consider yourself a member. Again, theoretically, I suppose.
Posted by Phoebe in Wallingford on October 23, 2012 at 12:15 PM · Report this
Gay Dude for Romney 45
@40: Actually, I've been doing splendidly in presenting my case. I should note however, that when an editor of "Seattle's only Newspaper" refers to a section of his readership as maggots, gay to boot, well then I'm at liberty to embellish my responses with heaping anger, transformed into provocative yet eloquent rhetoric.
Posted by Gay Dude for Romney on October 23, 2012 at 12:29 PM · Report this
yawn . . I stopped reading back in #18 at "Hatred is a President who doesn't love America" . . . should have stopped a few lines earlier with the "Hatred is a $5 trillion national debut (sic)." Righties don't wanna engage, don't want to be responsive. If you disagree, you are wrong, deluded, evail, bamboozled by a smooth-talkin' president (unlike Reagan: his speech skills were just fine), or you hate America. And that's been the dominant right-wing message about disagreement for a long time. I reserve the right to hate oppression, and people who knowingly, actively support it. Because that's the opposite of not just diversity, but of liberty, the "loss" of which those tea party folks are always lamenting.
Posted by sophist2 on October 23, 2012 at 12:40 PM · Report this
venomlash 47
@45: "I'm winning this argument because reasons."
And since when are Log Cabin Republicans part of the SLOG readership?
Posted by venomlash on October 23, 2012 at 12:41 PM · Report this
Pick1 48
@27 Did you even read this post?

yesterday the Romney campaign not only reiterated its support for amending the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, which would result in the forcible divorce of tens of thousands of legally-married same-sex couples in seven states and the District of Columbia, the Romney camp also described a gay man's ability to be at his husband's bedside during a medical emergency as a "benefit"—a little treat, a special favor—and not a right.

Pretty sure that would be someone that would attempt to roll back your rights. Whether it would pass, why would you even fucking take that bet?
Posted by Pick1 on October 23, 2012 at 12:53 PM · Report this
GDfR, you want to talk about hatred?

Hatred is calling a president who is doing everything he knows how to make our country safer and stronger literally unAmerican.

Hatred is playing politics with people's lives; teaching parents to reject and shun their children, because the child's suicide is better than their existence as "a gay".

Hatred is realizing that the American people disagree with your economic policies, and changing your focus to stopping women from getting health care, stopping gays from getting human rights, and protecting bigots who hate both groups.

Hatred is programming citizens to be unable to think on a rational level, and to instead respond to your dog whistles by disengaging from discussion.

Hatred is confusing disagreement with you economic theories with hatred.

Failing to close a $1t deficit in the face of obstructionism? That's not hatred. Neither is presiding over a week economy that you tried to restart. Accusing one guy of crony capitalism while ignoring the fact that that's everyone in power, including your guy? Not hatred, but suggestive.

Finally, hatred is voting for someone who doesn't think you're human, regardless of your reason. That's self-hatred, and I hope you realize this soon.
Posted by Hanoumatoi on October 23, 2012 at 1:17 PM · Report this
geoz 50
How can I cleverly put Uncle Tom's Cabin together with Log Cabin Republicans?
Posted by geoz on October 23, 2012 at 1:36 PM · Report this
What percentage of gays vote Republican anyways? I assume among White gays that number is pretty high. If Republicans were smart, they'd drop the social bs and focus on fiscal conservatism. All that Bible thumping stuff is old.
Posted by Patricia Kayden on October 23, 2012 at 3:13 PM · Report this
BrotherBob 52
One argument for allowing "gay Marriage" in NY was the revenue it would generate. I ask myself, "why lesbians/gay men would take their children to an anti gay state? " I myself will not go to a hostile country such as Arabia, nor would I go to a hostile state, such as Florida. And I certainly would not spend my vacation dollars where bigots could get them.
Posted by BrotherBob on October 23, 2012 at 3:40 PM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 53
Fuck the LCR and fuck their mindless syncophants.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on October 23, 2012 at 4:15 PM · Report this
Knat 54
Actually, I've been doing splendidly in presenting my case.

@45: Ha! Hahahahahaha! ...No.
Posted by Knat on October 23, 2012 at 5:49 PM · Report this
Y 55
Uncle Tom's Log Cabin.
Posted by Y on October 23, 2012 at 7:00 PM · Report this
Austensplaining for the benefit of Mr Dude:

"I must not decide on my own performance."
Posted by vennominon on October 24, 2012 at 5:43 AM · Report this
Mr Libertarian @19 - Impossibly high? Hardly. One just has to be willing to spend the requisite political capital, and until now there was insufficient reason for the Republicans to cook their biggest cash cow. Half the Democrats in Congress would sell us out for far less than sufficient pork to give them Tenure For Life with their constituents. And this is just the sort of thing likely to appeal to Mr Romney. Get the FMA through Congress via a series of secret deals and he's a bigger right-wing hero than Mr Reagan. The states won't be a problem, even if Puerto Rico joins the union and bumps the 3/4 number from 38 to 39.
Posted by vennominon on October 24, 2012 at 5:55 AM · Report this
Here's what I don't get. Why be a gay Republican when Libertarians are a group that exists. They have similar economical views to the repubs, but they have a pretty strong history of supporting gay rights. Gary Johnson was "out" for supporting gay marriage before Obama even. I'd be voting Libertarian myself if the race wasn't so close (no way I want that turd Ryan anywhere near the White House). LCR and GOProud have no excuse other than the most vauge hopes of "changing things from the inside." There really is no way that the GOP will risk loosing it's support of social conservatives (at least not for another decade). So gay repub's will just remain a tool of their's to claim they aren't raving bigots. "See? I don't hate fags. Look at my gay friend over there in the corner."
Posted by MarquisDesMoines on October 25, 2012 at 9:09 AM · Report this
"Hatred is four years of an anemic economy.", it's not.
Posted by James Hutchings on October 26, 2012 at 4:46 AM · Report this
@Gay Dude for Romney:

You seem to be arguing that The Stranger should be rejected for its hateful attitude to you.

Yet you don't seem to think that the Republican Party should be rejected for its hateful attitude to you.

The Republican Party's attitude to you seems to be the more extreme one.
Posted by James Hutchings on October 26, 2012 at 4:51 AM · Report this

Add a comment


Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy