These types of articles always crack me up the most:
“No love for Texas’ gay Republicans”
This was sent to me by someone recently and I just had a moment from my busy tax schedule to actually read some of my e-mail.
Basically the jist of the article informs us that even though Log Cabin Republicans in Texas are dissenting, many Republican politicians still refuse to show the gay community the love it deserves.
So what? A few hillbillies (not that Texans are “hillbillies”, Phil and Jenn) are still living in the dark ages. Do the same hillbillies that live in weed-filled trailer parks all over the country and vote Democrat to keep their welfare qualify as gay haters as well? Because the last time I checked, it was the same small-mindedness that usually leads to this kind of a conclusion on the topic of homosexuality.
Moreover; the statistics are there, folks. Arizona voted against a ban on gay marriage – a red state. California voted overwhelmingly in support of Proposition 22 in 2000 (a bill that keeps the definiton of marriage as “man/woman”). Oregon voters in 2004 voted overwhelmingly in support of the FMA. Bush lost in that state in a landslide remember? This tells us that liberals are voting against it as well and even to a higher degree.
Let’s not forget Kerry’s admission in 2004 that he was also against gay marriage.
The only difference is the response. It doesn’t matter how uneducated and ignorant you are in this world - but the only way to get someone like Ellen to whine about it (as she did recently on her show about a Republican Congresswoman) or to get media attention over it is to have the ignorance being uttered by someone with an “R” at the end of their name.
I promise you if that ignorance is ever going to be defeated, it’s best for LCR to stay on the Republican side of the fence.
steveflesher
Philip
Mel Maguire
Mark Ciavola
Comments
Did you see the article on this in The Advocate, Steve?
Awesome stuff, and so true…
No, it was forwarded to me, but I am sure it’s running in lots of places. As I said, we’ll only hear about it when it’s a Republican.
Just a pathetic excuse for the Democrats to politicize something they care nothing about.
TOTALLY AGREE with you, Steve! Why on earth do gays think Dems are automatically their friends? Wish gays would quit allowing their vote to be bought with a handshake and a cocktail. Fact: We have some Dem allies and some Republican allies. However, neither party stands up for equality for gays. The difference is, our self-elected gay “leaders” seem to give Dems a “pass” on the issues. I remember watching an interview in which a gay “leader” defended the Democrat Presidential Candidates’ positons against gay marriage because it was a “personal religious” issue to the candidates. A Republican lesbian on the split-screen challenged him on that, saying that’s no longer an acceptable excuse for Republicans and it’s no longer acceptable for Dems. If they are our friends, let them take the risk of standing up for us. Some Republicans have stood up for us and faced very challenging re-elections as a result — sadly, the gay “leadership” to this day still backs gay-issue-neutral Dems over pro-gay Republicans. It’s shameful and self-serving. These are not MY leaders.
Steve, the voters of Arizona voted against a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The reason is they wanted to give benefits of hospital visitation, legal issues, etc., but the Arizona public didn’t see the value in completely denying benefits to gays because they saw that it would tie everything up in the Courts.
We are getting an opportunity again this year to vote for defining marriage as between a man and a woman, but giving the little benefits that would make life a little easier for gays.
Hey, I just want an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, but I think to get there I am willing to let gay couples have the little benefit of visitation and legal issues.
We each get what we want, but overwhelmingly, the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.
Devil,
I avoid philisophical debates on marriage to the extent that I never give my actual personal belief on the topic of gay marriage. If I did, it would fog things up.
The best thing to say on the matter is that there are indeed major philispophical arguments that support both sides of that opinion.
I tend to focus on the politics surrounding the issue and no matter which way the worm turns, it has to turn by the power of Democracy, not by a gavel of a liberal or conservative Justice.
Bottom line is I am tired of the left using this as an issue that they allegedly care about when indeed they vote against any type of proposed legislation giving gays more rights to an even higher degree than their political opponents they choose to keep the focus on.
Also interesting that Devil Dog is willing to allow gays hospital visitation rights. Guess we should do the same for straights. Wait a minute, nobody’s asking the citizens to vote on which rights and we grant straights. Hummm. If all basic dignities had be voted on by the masses, our country would not be the Great Country it is. Fact: if we held a national election on whether or not Bill Gate’s money should be taken by the government and distributed to the “citizens” — each citizen receiving $10K — it would pass overwhelmingly. Of course, that would destroy one of our country’s greatest competitive companies, but the majority would gladly do that for 10K in free money. Similarly, if we held a national electon asking whether or not the best jobs should be 80% reserved for whites, it would pass. Free college for women? It would pass. If rights were only determined by popular vote, we would be back to a tribal system. Honestly, I do appreciate Devil Dog’s willingness to help gays; however, it frustrates me that such decisions are even presented to the public. Nobody ever asked me if my neighbors could get married or include each other in their wills. Nobody even asked me whether or not militant Muslims, repeat criminals or Illegals should be given these rights. Yet they get to make that decision for gays. Hummmmmm.