Although I read every comment posted on OMG Blog, I don’t respond to them all that often– and I almost never respond to them on the main page. Furthermore, this isn’t really a political blog, and although I do sometimes post quasi-political stuff, I try to keep it on the absurdist side. But lately we’ve gotten a lot of comments like the following one– from commenter Rick on the post about Ken Mehlman coming out of the closet— and I disagree so strongly that I’m going to break my usual rules to elucidate. Rick writes:
I think this is a non-story. Gay people are allowed to be conservative. Maybe he believes in limited government strong military might low taxes maybe he is against abortion. That doesn’t mean he personally believes or wanted to stop gay marriage. Also, he was a manager for a campaign, a great job, maybe he was just doing it for the cash. Ultimately I’m tired of people dehumanizing gay people that don’t COMPLETELY agree with all the issues they believe in. So he was conservative? So what? He’s out and I wish him the best of luck. Just to let you know, I voted for obama and consider myself very liberal.
Well guess what? Bush’s 2004 presidential campaign– which Auntie Ken ran— capitalized on pure homophobia to bring voters to the polls. This was a deliberate strategy for winning, and the result was that anti-gay laws passed in 11 states. Mehlman is directly responsible for this.
I’m sure that, like Rick says, Mehlman was motivated more by careerism and perhaps more old-skool (read: pre-Reagan) conservative beliefs than by personal homophobia. In other words, Rick’s probably right that he was “doing it for the cash.” This is the opposite of a good excuse. Mehlman still sold his own people down the river out of pure greed. Anyone who has ever seen a children’s cartoon knows that many of the most evil people on earth are doing it for the cash.
Of course gay people have all different kinds of political beliefs. Believe it or not, I have certain beliefs that could be classified as conservative. But in 2010, the Republican party’s goals are so intertwined with pandering to their homophobic base that there’s absolutely no excuse for any gay person or even gay ally to be a Republican, and this situation is a perfect illustration of that. A Republican may claim to not personally support homophobia, but by casting their votes, money and efforts with the homophobes, they’re actively hurting the gay movement whether that’s their explicit intention or not.
And before anyone starts complaining that Obama doesn’t support gay marriage and Clinton implemented Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, etc, etc etc: well duh. It’s obvious that the Democratic Party hasn’t done much to support gay equality either. However, many individual Democrats have actively fought for justice (especially on a local level, which is important!). I would be hard pressed to think of more than a few Republicans who have done the same. Furthermore, as a party, Democrats may not be taking the stand for gay equality that we’d like them to, but at least they aren’t actively using gays as a punching bag. They may not be perfect but they happen to be the best choice.
If you want to be an idealist, join the Green Party or whatever wacky thing kids are doing these days. If you truly believe in lower taxes and small government, be a f*cking libertarian, I guess. (The Republicans haven’t stood for small government in about 30 years anyway.) But there’s absolutely no excuse for voting for or supporting Republicans. And there’s really no excuse for running the f*cking 2004 Bush campaign.
Auntie Ken is a disgrace. I’m sick of everyone whining that gays can believe whatever they want. When it comes to politics, beliefs– and in Ken Mehlman’s case, actions– have consequences.
B-Dub,
At some point I should probably stop addressing this as I’ve already pointed out no one is going to be willing to concede and this could turn into a who makes the final comment type situation. One final point is needed because it seems there’s a misunderstanding here.
At no point, in any of my comments, did I suggest that Ken Mehlman didn’t do anything wrong. At no point in any of my comments did I suggest that he should be forgiven or should get a free pass because he’s gay. My comments primarily concerned demonizing all gay conservatives because of him. I took issue with equating his actions to others, not blaming him for what he did. I also took issue with a couple of misconceptions regarding various aspects of the story, how marriage amendments actually get instituted and the current trends in the GOP.
You really should read over all of the comments carefully and make sure you’re addressing the proper person or that you fully understand what others are saying. It really seems like we aren’t meeting at the same point here. You’re saying that what he did was wrong and I’m blinded because I won’t admit that but I’m speaking on something completely different and I happen to think what he did was VERY wrong. It was wrong to begin with and it was only made worse by the fact that he’s actually gay himself.
Umm, Devin, how is pointing out the fact that there are other types or forms of “authority” undermining your own? Do you have a need to be the “top authority” on this issue? In arguing your position, you seem to place all the weight of your argument on the authority of the person making it. B-Dub is correct in pointing out the fallacy of your logic. Imagine someone without your political degree and educational background typed the exact comments you did. Would what they say be somehow less valid? According to your reasoning here, it sounds like you’d say, “yes.”
More concisely, when it comes to argumentation, it’s all about THE VALIDITY OF THE ARGUMENT, *not* the person making it. Faulty appeal to authority falls in the same camp as “ad hominem.” Yes, of course certain authority lends credibility to certain arguments; but what you seem to suggest is that only your kind of authority trumps anything Bmad or others might say on the topic.
You say, “It’s not a matter of opinion that voters are the primary ones to blame for gay marriage amendments.” Well, let me introduce you to a little thing called nuance: while voters VOTE for anti-gay amendments, politicians, media, corporations, churches, etc. all work very hard and spend lots of money trying to influence those voters–either honestly or not. These forces (of which Mehlman was MAJOR) are a huge part of the equation and central to the topic at hand. My basic understanding of politics is enough to know that politics is complex, with many cogs and layers of influence.
Finally, citing or claiming that one’s authority somehow automatically validates an opinion is exactly how religious right nut-jobs get away with legitimizing their horrific anti-gay views–after all, what greater “authority” is there than God and his Holy Bible?
And that right there is why we get such a negative rap and can’t come together to even help ourselves. Everything with the gay community these days seems to be do or die, be like us or you are against us…the same things that many accuse the other side of doing.
Not all of us are going to do things just the way the gay community wants us too or preaches we should do. Sorry I can’t stand the Democratic party and what is stands for. I can’t stand the REpublican one either, but I find this bend over and let the Democratic party have it’s way with you philosophy to be so stupid and degrading.
My being gay does not dictate who I am. It is part of my life as well as all my other beliefs. None of them alone define who I am. My being gay defines who I want to sleep with and be with and that is it. As far as some of my other beliefs I happen to find them even more important than my right to marry or fuck who I want. All that goes into who I vote for, who I work for, and the causes I stand for.
I am just tired of this seemingly new gay agenda of making our sexual orientation the be all and end all of our lives.
Sorry but that is not for me. My views on immigration esp. are so out of line of what the Democrats are standing for and there is no way I can support them at all. Just as you accuse of the Republicans aligning themselves with things, the Democratic party has done the same esp. in regards of giving the US away to the illegal immigrants. They and the people who follow seem more concerned about the rights of those who are not supposed to be here than they do about the citizens of this country. That to me and many other issues come into play….some even above gay marriage.
I respect Ken Mehlman and the courage he has taken in coming out. The same as I do any gay man who does. And I respect his right to be who he wants to be and hope he doesn’t feel bullied into being someone he isn’t just because many gays now feel like they can dictate who we are supposed to be as gay men and what we are supposed to believe.
Sorry folks but that is not the way it is supposed to be. What have we as gays been fighting for…the right to be who we are and not what the world tells us we SHOULD BE.
As someone who makes his living in academia, let me tell you: this whole idea of “authority” is bullshit. It’s something that humanities scholars rely upon to bolster shitty claims. Either your argument is well-reasoned and convincing or it is not. THE END.
AJ, I find it interesting that in the same comment you both try to undermine my “authority” while asserting Bmad’s on the subject. Considering none of the qualifications you list for him (like being politically aware and living as a gay person) are unique to him it doesn’t make sense for you to conclude that he has some sort of authority on the subject over anyone else, especially me.
Also, if you look back at the comments and read them properly most of my primary issues with the post were a matter of fact, not opinion. It’s not a matter of opinion that Ken Mehlman doesn’t represent all gay conservatives. It isn’t a matter of opinion that the GOP is moving away from gay issues. It’s not a matter of opinion that voters are the primary ones to blame for gay marriage amendments (even if you have a basic understanding of how our political system works this should be an easy one). It’s not even a matter of opinion that gay conservatives are going to vote on other issues when the gay issue is the same for both candidates. Anyone who believes stuff like this to be opinion and not fact has no idea what they’re talking about and lacks a good understanding of how our political system works and what the political climate is like today.
Devin,
Your pride is blinding you from the error in your logic. You ARE falsely authoritative (which is what Bmad and I have the church giggles over in the first place). Studying politics in undergraduate college and planning on law school is hardly the be all and end all to your argument (I had classmates who were political science majors and planned on law school–many because their parents were wealthy lawyers–and they struggled with even the simplest concepts).
I majored in English, writing, philosophy and religion in undergraduate school and am about to receive my master’s in philosophy and religion from a top tier university. I suppose that means you can stop talking now, since I know everything there is to know about logic and am thus the authority (see how annoying and irrational that is?).
I think you conservatives are willing to make up any excuse for this single situation. Rather than admit that what Ken Mehlman did was wrong (that little thing where he supported anti-gay initiatives?), you all remain pridefully stubborn.
I am not equating being gay with liberal or Democrat. I tend to swing libertarian on numerous occasions. However, when you have a someone who drives one of the most rampantly homophobic campaigns come out–and especially once he’s out of a real position of power–you have an undeniable hypocrite. This man chose money and power at the expense of his gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. But you would all stay on the unethical side than admit in this one instance that you’re wrong. Why? Because you’re prideful. The same prideful that makes you think having an undergraduate degree makes you an authority (ha!). Do you realize that very rarely does the subject area of an undergraduate degree make a difference when seeking a job in the real world? To come even close to “authority,” you’d need years of experience in an area, most likely a PhD (or at least a master’s degree), and probably to have published in your given area.
Wow. I never usually read all these comments in chronological order (I hate reading threads backwards, yo!)
But methinks amidst all this philosophical-logical-quasi-spiritual puffery, one might cut to the chase: Devin, please understand, despite your academic authority, there actually IS a difference between “fact” and “opinion” (i.e. well reasoned opinion does not magically become fact). Perhaps your earlier posts were written in haste, but if you re-read them, you seem to suggest that your authoritative opinion transmogrifies into fact. Not so. Maybe makes you more convincing, your opinion more sound, but NOT fact.
That said, I think there’s a case to be made that being a “politically aware” gay person who follows the news, gathers information from a variety of sources, and LIVES the very discriminated-against life Mehlman’s “professional” work has brought to bear qualifies as some sort of authority…poli sci degree or not…
Under that rubric, Bmad most certainly qualifies.
B-Dub, wouldn’t you agree that politics is reliant on that sort of rhetoric? One skilled in politics is able to veil faulty reasoning so that it is not readily apparent.
In fact, Bmad’s post is an appeal to emotion, which, while he was not in the least trying to make a logical statement, is still fallacious reasoning.
Many of those who have commented on this post have succumbed to the red herring fallacy, in alluding to the Republican Party being akin to the KKK, and alluding to, yes, Uncle Tom. These tactics do not demonstrate anything in the least.
However, they are powerful political tools, because most are not equipped to spot flaws in logic.
The flaw in almost all the reasoning here is the assumption of mimesis between the gay community and gay individuals. Mehlman himself demonstrates this to be false. Had it been true, Mehlman would demonstrate sameness (a term you should’ve learned in philosophy 101) with the gay community.
B-Dub,
You’re close but you’re also wrong. The fallacy of a faulty appeal to authority doesn’t work exactly the way you think it does. Your example would more appropriately be called an appeal to faulty authority, not a faulty appeal to authority.
You’re example says:
Source A says p is true.
Source A is authoritative.
Thus, p is true.
However, that isn’t a fallacy because if source A is authoritative then the argument is acceptable. The fallacy only exists when A is falsely authoritative. Simply citing an authoritative source is not an automatic indicator of a fallacy. If I presented myself as an authority without any previous work or educational experience or if I had a substantial person interest in getting others to believe my claim is true (like a monetary interest) then it would be a fallacy. You could also attempt to prove that I actually have no education what so ever or personal experience in the field (despite my claim) and if you were able to do that then it would be a fallacy of a faulty appeal to authority.
So you’re “feeling” about me not being adequately prepared for law school is wrong. Thanks for trying but your novice understanding of fallacies easily reveals your flawed logic.
Perhaps it’s inappropriate for me to doubt Devin’s educational claims–but in undergraduate college I had a potential plan for law school. They highly recommended a philosophy 101 and logic course, where we learned within the first week a list of logical fallacies (flaws in one’s argumentation resulting from poor reasoning), including fallacies of defective induction.
One such fallacy of defective induction is the appeal to authority, which goes as follows:
Source A says p is true.
Source A is authoritative.
Thus, p is true.
If I’m not mistaken, Devin did exactly that (citing himself/herself as Source A). I feel that if Devin were actually skilled in the art of politics and adequately prepared for law school, Devin would realize that this argument holds absolutely no water.
Just sayin’. The more you talk, the better Bmad looks.
Being a gay republican is like being a black member of the KKK.
Disagree all you like, but that’s what it is. Sorry.
I can’t believe that people are writing long, rambling comments trying to defend this twat.
He’s an Uncle Tom. If you disagree, fine. I’m not going to waste anymore precious keystrokes on the topic.
Perhaps not. However, there are more important things. Forgiveness, acceptance, and love. They are far greater powers than any one person wields.
In a very real sense, Mehlman has not harmed anyone. Perhaps excluded some from their inherent rights; but he has not forsaken his humanity. His complexity shows us that.
It was Lincoln that said, very famously, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” It was an even more famous person that said, “Love thy brother as thyself.”
Instead of dividing ourselves further along artificial partisan lines, let us forgive; and upon the hope that forgiveness instills, let us continue building our great fraternity of equals.
shawn, should a hit man be lauded for his “professionalism” too? One can be doing their job well and still be an amoral asshole in the process. Like i said in the post, people are accountable for actions that hurt others. the fact that mehlman happened to be hurting other people like himself just makes him an Uncle Tom instead of your garden-variety homophobe.
As a professional politician, Mehlman was required to be faithful to those who gave him power, which were not gay people.
It is not the easiest thing in the world to be a professional, because it often requires one to separate work from personal whims.
Would you expect a journalist to write articles only from their point of view? This is assuming that the journalist is not writing editorials. Would you expect a doctor to diagnose patients based upon his personal beliefs and not by the conclusions of medical science? Would you expect a teacher to teach only those things which they find morally responsible to children?
The answer to all of those is no. All of those people have a professional responsibility to be objective and to serve the requirements of the people that give them power. The editor requires objective copy, the patient requires accurate diagnosis, the State requires the curriculum to be served.
The Republican Party required Mehlman to support gay rights? No, they required him to run and win one of the largest political campaigns in history. As a professional, Mehlman did all he could in the power that was granted him to serve that requirement.
Personally, I may disagree with what Mehlman did; but I can’t find fault in his professionalism.
The point is that the gay community does not empower anybody, it doesn’t provide organized moral or financial support. It is the emergent collective of a movement. Membership to this collective is not compulsory. Membership does not hold any requirements of creed, of sex, of religion, or of race.
As it has always been to those who are equals, individuals have only a responsibility to themselves.
Championing gay rights to the point of saying, “I’m sick of everyone whining that gays can believe whatever they want.” Is not to support our position, but to spit on the central pillar our movement: freedom.
Believe what you would like; but do not attempt to tarnish the beauty of the individual who can find heart to only be themselves. It is this very beauty that we rely on to become equals.
If that individual is gay and is also Republican, then we, as members of this gay community, are required to do our great social and ethical duty and accept that person as a member of the whole.
You obviously aren’t going to concede on any topic of authority because that would essentially be an admittance that your post is nothing but an opinion by some random, potentially uninformed gay blogger. I never claimed to know what degree you have or qualifications but typically when people choose not to state some degree of authority it means that they have no authority to speak on the subject.
As far as pundits are concerned anyone should know that authority doesn’t solely originate from education. Someone working in a field gains some sort of authority through workplace experience. That’s why someone at Home Depot can tell you which wood you should buy for a certain project. They didn’t necessarily learn that in school but from actually working. (It should be noted that this isn’t a political blog and therefore would not count towards workplace authority).
Defending pundits and their credibility is quite a digression from the original point so I don’t think it would be useful to continue to go into detail. If you want to believe that posting on this blog gives you some sort of political authority and want to continue to make posts like these then go right ahead. Just don’t be surprised if you continue to get called out for it. Not only are you wrong in several ways, you haven’t shown any educational or workplace experience to back up your statements as something more than just basic opinion from a biased and uninformed blogger.
At no point did I ever state that people should not have opinions. The problem arises when people try to push their opinions as authoritative fact. Obviously everything I’m spouting off could be the musings of some 17 year old kid who’s still in high school or I could be copying and pasting the arguments of someone else. It’s the internet, that’s just the way things are. This is also a “private” blog and as a poster you are allowed to post whatever you want. While it’s great that you’re open to comments and allow comments even if they’re critical you must also be open to people who are more informed than you telling you that you’re wrong.
Which is exactly what I’ve done. Whether you choose to take any of my words regarding gay conservatives into consideration is up to you but I certainly hope my words resonate with at least one reader who doesn’t understand or hates the idea of a gay conservative.
I do want to stress that I appreciate your willingness to post all of my replies even though they are critical of your post, its content and the way it was authored. If this post were on a different site (perhaps an actual liberal political blog) or if gay republicans weren’t the subjects of ridicule on more than one occasion here I probably would have skipped commenting but I felt the need to say something in this case.
i always laugh a little when self-styled republicans talk about personal responsibility — much in the same way that i laugh when republicans talk about how they are “values voters” as though they’re they only ones that have values. my values and my sense of personal responsibility tell me that a gay man with a platform (in any party) actively working to harm other LGBT people is acting immorally and offensively. full stop.
as a side note, how’s that personal responsibility working out re: wall street bail and bp?
my point is that i’ve never stated on this blog what degree or other qualifications i do or don’t have, so actually you don’t know. while i don’t have a degree in poli-sci (took some classes though!) i do have an undergrad degree from a supposedly top-ish tier institution (lol), and as a result i am perfectly aware that they’re easily available to any fool whose can find a way to foot the bill. even more bullshit is the idea that a “pundit” is somehow a person of authority. a pundit is just a person with an opinion and a platform. in fact, considering the number of readers this blog has, I think I actually do qualify as a pundit. maybe if we’re talking complicated political theory it would be helpful to have some kind of specialized training, but when it comes to things like this, anyone reasonably informed person who isn’t a total idiot is perfectly qualified– and perhaps even has a civic responsibility– to have an opinion. that doesn’t mean that opinion is right, but whatever. (only my opinion is right. (just kidding. (sort of.)))
There IS a certain level of authority to speak on politics when you have an undergraduate degree just like someone who has a degree in literature can be an authority on Shakespeare or someone who has an MD has medical authority.
Everyone is allowed to have an opinion about something but levels of authority deal with the likelihood of that opinion being correct. Yes, I have a B.A. in political science which means that I can speak on politics with more authority than someone who does not but that does not put me at the top of some hierarchy. If a political pundit or correspondent were to comment on this post then their comments were carry a certain amount of weight above all others.
Unfortunately our political system is set up in a way where everyone thinks that their political opinions are fact when they really aren’t qualified to speak on something. There mere fact that you titled the post “I shouldn’t have to explain this: Why it’s not ok to be gay Republican” shows that you intended to assert some sort of authority without a basis for it.
Your entire post is merely opinion, misguided opinion at that, but as I stated before it’s very difficult to express political opinion without sounding as though you’re trying to express supreme authority over others. The best way to avoid this is to ask questions and open dialogue but you didn’t attempt that.
I will acknowledge the fact that even political authority can be tainted with bias. In politics most people have some sort of bias but you can’t title a post like this the way you did and then get mad when someone calls you out on your supposed authority on the subject.
How do you know how much “authority” I have anyway, Devin? For all you know, this is the secret gay blog of Alexis de fucking Tocqueville. Beyond that: what even constitutes “authority?” You’re only qualified to have an opinion on something that affects us all if you have an undergrad degree (lol) in political science?
I should also clarify that when I said the author of the post had no political authority I was not trying to say that he was dumb or anything. People are obviously allowed to have their own opinions and this opinion, though different than mine, is at least more thought out and better written than many similar opinions against gay conservatives.
Many people choose to simply go the “gay conservatives are moral-less pigs” route without explanation or at the very least, poor explanation.
Issues like this are always difficult for people to resolve because of the mix of players involved. You have people who know what they are talking about mixed with people who are completely politically ignorant and many times everyone, regardless of political knowledge or qualifications speaks as an authority. It’s the nature of a democratic political system and there’s nothing that can be done about it. Even my following comments will sound like I’m speaking on political authority and I can’t avoid that (though I do have a B.A. in political science and am currently getting a JD).
With that said, this post was written in the form of some sort of political authority of which the author (Bmad) has none. As a result, there are many issues which I won’t go over again because they’ve already been addressed by a few comments. There are however a few things that need to be taken into consideration.
1. Being a gay conservative and doing what Ken Mehlman did are two different things. His actions were not honorable and as a result many people are suddenly lumping all gay conservatives together as if they would all do the same thing. Not every gay conservative would lead a campaign like that and it isn’t fair to expect gay conservatives to change their views because one of them did something really stupid.
2. The GOP and Republicans, as a matter of policy, are moving away from gay issues. The religious groups are the ones still pressing forward and religious bigotry and republicans aren’t the same.
3. Republican politicians are not necessarily the ones responsible for gay marriage bans in many states. Most marriage amendments have occurred at a state level and voting for a republican president or senator does not necessarily have an effect on that. The voters in the states are the ones who have caused this and many of those voters are influenced or pushed by religious groups. It’s the people around you that are at direct fault, not necessarily the politicians. If some piece of anti-gay legislation passes, then the politicians become directly responsible. Even then they are influenced by their constituents and if they believe that the people around you want something done they will do it in order to secure re-election. It’s surprising how many politicians beliefs are grounded in the voters, not their own. If a republican politician knows that a vast majority of his conservative base isn’t against gay marriage there isn’t a chance in hell he’ll go against them unless he doesn’t intend to seek re-election.
4. Due to the stances taken in our past election the decision on who to vote for was made easier for gay conservatives. Both Obama and McCain had nearly identical views on gay marriage. Clinton and Giuliani were the ones that were different. Clinton actually supported gay marriage and Giuliani was against a federal ban and supported the idea of civil unions despite being a republican. When both parties, Obama and McCain, have the same view on the one issue that could actually sway you what are you going to do? A gay conservative isn’t going to vote for Obama just because the democratic party has been better for gays in the past. They are going to look at current trends and what will come in the future. As far as gay marriage is concerned on a federal level the same results would likely happen with either candidate so obviously the rest of the policy platform comes into play.
There really is no need to demonize gay conservatives, especially considering the current political climate. Picking out individuals however is acceptable. If a gay conservative votes for a republican politician that is promising to try and make homosexual sex illegal they’re a traitor to their own community. If a gay conservative votes for a republican politician that has the same views on gay marriage and the democratic opponent, they aren’t a traitor.
To be honest Obama used the idea that the democrats are better for gays to win over voters in the last election and the LGBT community fell for it. You can’t judge a politician based solely on their party affiliation, you must judge them on their platform and many people forgot that during the last election.
For all my gay brothers who think voting Republican is okay: go fuck yourselves. The Republican Party has declared war on us, putting anti-gay legislation at the heart of its agenda. If the Democratic Party started making anti-Jewish politics one of its central platforms, I would have to stop voting Democrat (despite the fact that I strongly agree with many of the Party’s principles). There really are some things that are inexcusable, and voting for a party that so actively pursues an agenda of bigotry and persecution against a minority…that’s just immoral.
The fact of the matter is that Ken Mehlmann has NOT apologized or retracted in any public way to the gay community to which HE NOW BELONGS. I totally understand gay conservatism (I hardcore disagree with it, but it is very possible to reconcile certain conservative ideals with being LGBT). However, the Republican Party has explicitly USED us as scape goats to MAKE MONEY, which is exactly what Mehlmann did for so many years. He lives in a 3.8 million dollar condo in NY that he was able to buy because of his vilifying us. I don’t even care if he’s still a ‘conservative.’ What I DO want is for him to acknowledge that what he did WAS in fact damage, and that LGBT people in 40 STATES cannot marry. He MUST apologize for this, and yet he has not. In fact, he seems to have done the opposite. “I’m a private citizen now” he says. Well, give back all that damn money you made off of your own people and make things right!
Ugh, I give up, CajunGuy. It’s not bigotry to disagree with someone politically. If you believe so much in “personal responsibility” you should agree that people– especially professional politicians like Ken Mehlman– can and should be held accountable for their actions.
I just don’t think just because we’re gay means we have to fall in line with what people expect us to think or be. I’m neither Republican or Democrat, but I agree with certain issues on either side.
Obama came out against Same Sex marriage around the same time that beauty pageant girl did, but he got our praise and she cot damned… even though they said the same thing. Honestly, sometimes our community is really fucking stupid. This partisan crap is just a part of it.
This is the first time I post a comment on this site as I usually just come here to distract myself from work. However, after reading this post I feel I must say something. As a gay conservative, I am really tired of other gays/liberals being so intolerant of people who have different views from themselves which I think is funny since most liberal people I know consider themselves accepting of all people (except republicans). The good thing about living in the Unites States is that you can vote for whoever you want to vote for without having to justify it to anyway. Yes, I am gay but that is not all that I am. Not that I feel I need to justify what I believe to anyone who is inconsiderate of other leanings, I will say that for the most part I do vote republican. I believe in smaller government, less taxes, I am very PRO LIFE (the horror, a gay with morals), and mostly for personal responsibility which seems to be lacking in this country. With that being said, I also believe in equal rights, affirmative action, and I would love for one day to be able to marry my partner. As homosexuals, we all know what it is like to be looked at as a stereotype. I would think that other gay men would be more accepting and open to other political views. This post overflowing with ignorance and bigotry against other gays is one of the reasons the gay movement hasn’t progressed much in equal rights. How can we expect equal rights when the members of our own community discriminate against others? I stand by my beliefs and convictions and would hope that I would be judged by my character and not by my private vote. In other words, get over yourself. Thanks for the entertaining blog though!
First of all, “Republican” and “conservative” are not synonymous. But gays can still be either/both! I’m gay, and I’m very conservative. I believe in at least a plurality of the major conservative platforms with respect to small government, states’ rights, gun ownership and overall personal responsibility. I don’t agree with the conservative stance on marriage but neither do I agree with the liberal stance on marriage. I think marriage belongs in the church, and all governments need to stay the hell out of it. But I can’t throw out all of those other beliefs and agreements simply on the issue of gay marriage/gay rights. It’s NOT the most important issue, and I refuse to let it define me. I’m not whining either, I don’t give a damn how you feel about me being a gay conservative (which many times means voting Republican). You’re mad over ONE issue, but my stance and party affiliation is based on many more important ones.
I never post comments on here but I have to say… Well said. I’m so sick of the bullsh*t excuses that people have to justify their bigotry and prejudices (don’t even get me started on this NYC Mosque and the racism that people are spewing).
I was going to correct you by saying that Obama supports gays because on the first day he was in office the home page of the White House stated all of the rights that they were going to fight for for the homosexuals (i.e. overturning of DADT, gays being able to adopt, ect.) but apparently things have changed since I am no longer able to find it on the website.
anyways kudos
Bravo indeed. I totally agree with all of this – Ken Mehlman is a nasty traitorous wretch. I did, however, object to the use of the term faggy in the original post. I think it’s one thing to jokingly say this among/about friends (though I don’t really love that either), but to use it as an attack or smear on someone who sucks reinforces all of the negativity that word is steeped in.
Just a minor complaint, really. Thanks for all the cute things, good blogging, and celebrity side dick I’ve come to love this site for.
Okay! Thanks for correcting my false logic. I was concerned that many gays think other gays cannot have conservative beliefs but you make a strong and compelling argument that voting republican is totally different than being conservative. I love your blog I have been a daily reader for 3 years. It’s cool that my comment was put on the main page, I just wish it didn’t paint me as such an idiot. Gays can be conservatives but voting Republican can be compared to Jews supporting the Third Reich. I love your blog, please keep up the great work!
Thanks for posting. I hope Ken is held accountable for all of his actions that have had negative consequences for gays and lesbians. Hard to understand how he could have been involved in such things with a good conscience.
I have read where others are pleased with his “announcement” and think he can do so much good for achieveing equality. Sadly, if people look back at his record they will see that there is so much EXTRA work now required to undo some of the harm that has been exacted on the gay community. Shameful.
Bravo. You said it very well.
My personal opinion is that these whining conservative gays that appear on this website either fall under the immature “you’re whatever party your parents tell you you are” mentality (since they obviously don’t consider the consequences) or there’s still some deep self-loathing they can’t seem to work out.
Yes, whomever complained, really was delusional. Ken’s own statements admit that he knew he was campaigning for/with homophobic people with an anti-gay agenda. Fiscal conservative, and conservative, religious, right-wing, anti-gay fruitcake ARE two different things.
Thank you!
care to expand on your opinion, thunderstorm?
I agree with Rick.
Well said. Gays can be be conservatives, but there is a big difference between being a conservative, being a Republican, and selling your soul.