"Even as gays have moved visibly into mainstream America, they hold a tenuous, complicated spot within the ranks of the GOP, whose earlier libertarian, live-and-let-live values have been ground down by the wedge issue of opposition to gay rights," the Washington Post reported. It noted that "many gay men are key aides to Republican legislators, powerful silent partners in winning elections by pledging allegiance to religious ‘values voters’ ever on the alert against ‘the homosexual agenda.’"
Gay conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan said GOP leadership is "tolerant of gay people but they have to keep quiet about it because their base would go crazy if they ever express it." He added, "They have this acute cognitive dissonance, which is a polite way of saying hypocrisy."
Meanwhile, the religious right is on the case. Tony Perkins (in photo), president of the Family Research Council, has been looking into whether gay GOP staffers have blocked anti-gay legislation.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- HLP on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
118 Comments
“They have this acute cognitive dissonance, which is a polite way of saying hypocrisy.”
Noooooooo. Really?
I think the problem with this entire thing is the way the word tolerance is being used.
If by tolerance you mean that the GOP doesn’t hate Gay people and treats them like anyone else minus we don’t think they should get special privledges for being gay, then there is not surprise there.
Of course, that is not the way you liberals use the word.
You use the word tolerance to mean that we must accept every facet of homosexual life as normal and aggree with it, never say anything bad or negative about it and most importantly support homosexual marriage.
Phillip,
Stop pretending like Republicans hate homosexuals. You continue to show your complete ignorance or purposeful twisting of the truth to further bash Republicans.
I guess you are not very “tolerant” of the GOP either way…
There’s been a lot of cognitive dissonance over the past six years.
Bush the 2000 candidate: “I’m going to be the education president.”
Bush 2003: “I’m the war president”.
Candidate Bush: “I will not engage in nation building.”
Prez Bush: “We must establish democracy in Iraq.”
Candidate Bush: “I am a uniter, not a divider.”
Prez Bush: [except when it comes to Americans, Congress, Iraqis, our European allies...]
Of course Bush still has some supporters, because, as Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool some of the people all the time.”
Tolerant to me Nathan has always meant that you did not always agree with someone one or like them. But you did not actively try to stop them or stand in their way. I have always thought it was a bad idea to give someone an edge based on their race, religion, gender, or any other thing that sets them a part from the rest.But neither should they be held back based on those things either, is marriage a right or privilege?
Some things do matter and should be a factor in the tolerance you give, the lines and the argument can become blurred. And not always is public good a good basis for the decision to tolerate someone else’s actions. But the test for one may not be a valid argument against or for another. Many of the arguments against Gay marriage would be valid against your seventy something Grandmother remarrying. Yet would you stand in her way?
I find it ironic that Christianity is being used to justify the fight against tolerances, WWJD has become he would cast the first stone! The difference between support and tolerance is that one you agree with something and the other is that you do not stand in it way and except it even though you do not agree with it. You may not agree that your grandmother should marry at such a late time in her life, but you would not deny her the happiness that she seeks.
I have seen the analogy of gay marriage and marriage between a man and a goat given ( I do not recall that it was you that gave it. Not implying either) but the differences are plain. The same qualifiers should be in place. Can and do both parties to this union give and are capable of given informed consent? Back to grandmother, if she has advanced Alzheimer’s then it would be the duty of you, your parents and the state to see to her welfare. But if she is of sound mind, even though the union could not in reality produce you a new Uncle or Aunt. Should not be stopped, why? Because even as a privilege, she is entitled to it as you and the one you love are. No one is asking for special treatment, just the same privileges as anyone else is given.
A goat could not say “yes,”A horse could only say “neigh”,A dog can vow “bow wow”And a wife says “not now.”
waddayagonnado?
Writerdog,
No one in the Republican party is stopping anyone from being gay. That is tolerance.
What many people are doing is not condoning government sanction of homosexual marriage.
Like I said, the liberals mistakenly link their magic word “tolerance” to allowing homosexuals to marry.
So here we have Phillip acting like Republicans hate homosexuals and he is surprised that Republicans work with homosexuals.
Like I have said many many many times that I have homosexual friends, I don’t hate them, I think they are wonderful people… I just don’t support the government giving them the special privledge of marriage.
So, I think it is silly that Phillip is sitting here writing about how it is some surprise that the GOP works with homosexuals.
Why do people insist that Republicans are some life form from an alien planet? 99.9 percent of people that I know that are of the Republican party are extremely tolerant. And they don’t go around calling names like some so-called tolerant Democrats do. It’s the 1 percent that gives the party a bad name.
Of course people are tolerant of gays regardless of their party affiliation. I don’t personally approve of the gay life style, but I’m not going to interfere with it or put up barriers.
I believe people should be rated by the merit of their work, the content of their character and their mindful intentions. What they want to do with their lives is not for me to decide or put up prejudices.
And no, I’m not gonna say may best friend is a gay, because although I have met some, I don’t have any homosexual friends that I’m aware of. If they turn out to be homosexuals, I’m sure I would do the ‘ooh and ahh’ refocusing exercise, but it won’t make a difference on how they do their job or interact generally in society.
And that conservative columnist is just plain wrong, we don’t keep quiet about it. I cannot speak for other Republicans, but I do not feel the need to bring up the topic and wave it around like some cheap advertising banner.
If they’re gay, they’re gay, let’s move on? Focusing on a sexual preference at work or any other activity serves no purpose.
If you want to scream at the top of your lungs and say look at me I’m tolerant of gays and help them celebrate gay pride, then go for it.
I prefer to do the job, live life, move on and just get along. Not gonna make any particular issue a big deal.
Many times things come down to “what is the definition”? What is “tolerance”? Whose definition is right? Whose definition is wrong?
We tolerate a lot of things. That does not mean that we have to accept them. It does not mean that we have to support them. If people chose a different lifestyle it does not mean that society has to accept that lifestyle. It does not mean that society has to support that lifestyle.
For most in society two people living together without the benefit of marriage is wrong. It does not make a difference if it is a man with a woman, two men in a relationship or two women in a relationship. Does society tolerate it? Yes they do. Does society have to accept it? No they do not.
Most republicans do not hate those that have chosen a different lifestyle. They disagree with that lifestyle but they don’t hate. There are democrats that don’t agree with those that have chosen a different lifestyle. If you look at the marriage amendment that was passed in Kansas you will see that the lead person on that was actually a woman democrat.
Where’s the story on that?
The major point of the story isn’t that Republicans do or do not tolerate gays. It is that they are trying to hide their tolerance from Christian Conservatives – a significant population they have been courting for years and as we have learned, have duped them time and again.
Not everyone who disagrees with the politics of this administarion and the two faced republicans who lead it are “Liberals”. In fact most of us who can’t support this administrations lies and policies, and the Republican leadership that wants to have it all both ways, are in fact thoughtful independents who based on facts and read both sides of the issues, can make intelligent informed decisions based on facts. Most of those you accuse as liberals are more “Compassionate Conservatives” who are not blinded by the bright lights of power and influence that many Christians fall prey to.
Gay people should have the same rights as anyone else. Many people believe that inter-racial marriage is wrong, much of society doesn’t accept it, but should it be outlawed based on that fact? Every American citizen has the right to happiness. Gay peole are no different and should be allowed to get married to their life partner if they so choose.It’s not a question of “tolerance”, it’s a question of rights.
Ken,
I am a Christian Conservative. Why would the GOP try to hide from them that they work with gays?
That is silly.
Mary,
Marriage is not a right, nor is homosexuality something like race or color.
How do you prove someone is gay? Do you ask them?
I don’t have to ask someone what color they are.
People choose to be gay which makes it different than color.
If I go out and paint myslef black do I get special points when I try to join particular schools now? ( I probably would because they wouldn’t know any better…)
No one chooses to be gay, Nathan. That’s where you really show your ignorance.Do you feel sexual attraction toward other men? If a beautiful woman is sitting beside a handsome man, so you feel an attraction to both, but simply “choose” to be straight? For most of us, sexual attraction is something that we feel, not “choose”.If it’s not a choice, then you couldn’t feel free to believe that practicing homosexuals are going to hell, that’s why you convince yourself it’s a choice, not a predisposition. If God didn’t create people that way, then you can condemn them.
[GOP leadership is "tolerant of gay people but they have to keep quiet about it because their base would go crazy if they ever express it." He added, "They have this acute cognitive dissonance, which is a polite way of saying hypocrisy."]
So trying to balance the differing interests of two very different constituancy groups is Hypocrisy???
I don’t think you’ll find that definition in Websters.
The Left can’t tolerate gay Republicans anymore than they can tolerate Black Republicans. You could say they have a lack of TOLERANCE in those areas. They just can’t fathom that a gay person or a black person could possibly be concerned with issues that have nothing to with their skin color or sexuality. The Lefts treatment of both Blacks and Gays is deeply insulting to both groups.
Gay bloggers threatening to “out” gay staffers working for Republicans, now thats the kind of “Tolerance” the Left understands.
Mary,
I don’t condemn anyone. I don’t support homosexual marriage.
Sexual attraction is a culmination of many things in a persons life.
A person may indeed be attracted more to a person of the same sex. Attraction doens’t make someone a homosexual. Choosing to act on that attraction does.
If being homosexual is not a choice then how do you explain those who were homosexuals from converting and changing their ways?
Nathan
Here is a quite from the editorial -
“Gay conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan said GOP leadership is “tolerant of gay people but they have to keep quiet about it because their base would go crazy if they ever express it.” He added, “They have this acute cognitive dissonance, which is a polite way of saying hypocrisy.”
Should answer your question.
Good points Heckler!
Ken,
Do you even know the meaning of the word Hypocrit?
Try http://www.dictionary.com
Nathan, No one converts from being homosexual to heterosexual, they simply stay in the closet and live a life of denial.You’re right, it’s a person’s choice what they do with their sexuality, but their sexuality is predisposed, not chosen.
By the way, there are studies to back up what I’ve said, it’s not just my opinion.
The left hasn’t outed any gay politicians — what has happened is the right has initially denied / ignored gays in their presence — then did a great deal of finger pointing on the leaderships abdication of their responsibility for controlling and their awareness of the Foley indiscretions.
What is lacking in all of these discussions of left – right, conservative – liberal is the position of independent moderstes who are most likely compassionate conservatives (the best of both worlds) who would be more inclined to think like Nathan (a self avowed Christian Conservative)- that can see the logic and facts on both sides of the issue and make rational decisions based on those. We need more moderates to raise their voices and be the peacemakers in all of this. They have truly become the “Silent Majority”.
ken
There’s a militant gay blogger out there, can’t remember his name, says he has a list of gay staffers who work for Republicans. He’s been threatning to OUT them. He can’t tolerate the fact that they would actually work for a Republican so he’s going to try to damage them and the people they work for. And yes I think you could say he’s on the Left politically.
“I think the problem with this entire thing is the way the word tolerance is being used.
If by tolerance you mean that the GOP doesn’t hate Gay people and treats them like anyone else minus we don’t think they should get special privledges for being gay, then there is not surprise there.”
No, the problem is with how “special privilege” is being used. There have not been pro-gay marriage amendments to state constitutions going around. There is nothing to keep people who have fall in love with someone of the opposite gender from marrying except for prior commitments (such as already being married) or issues effecting informed consent (age, adjudicated incompetence, etc.) or (and even there rarely) criminality. However, amendments to state constitutions have been pushed and passed specifically to block people who fall in love with somemone of the same gender from marrying. That is NOT preventing someone from having a special privilege, that is removing a privilege readily accessible to others. To say maintain that it is is simply absurd.
Tolerance, on the other hand, is not claiming that allowing people who are gay to marry is a “threat to marriage”, it is not preventing employers from recognizing for benefit purposes same sex relationships even when a government refuses to allow people of the same gender to marry, and it is not preventing those churches or religious organizations that wish to be able to marry same sex couples from doing so. Tolerance is not “allowing” same sex partners to live together but not allowing them to have the same privileges of the married couples next door even if they are willing to make the same legal commitment.
Marriage is a profoundly important condition that immediately confers rights and obligations on those who agree to the marriage commitment. I am a widower and one of the painful but necessary aspects of being widowed is dealing with your late spouse’s estate. But, at least I was assumed to have the authority to do so by everyone, the state, all the financial institutions, and every person I dealt with, as long as I could produce a marriage and a death certificate. On this road through widowhood I have met people who are the widows of same sex relationships. They showed the same level of commitment, staying with their dying spouse, taking care of children, and they have tried to settle their partner’s estate. But of course, they could produce no marriage certificate. A distant cousin is assumed to have more authority that they have. The pain that these people have to go through on TOP of the usual pains of widowhood are sure as hell not the results of tolerance.
“Of course, that is not the way you liberals use the word.
You use the word tolerance to mean that we must accept every facet of homosexual life as normal and aggree with it, never say anything bad or negative about it and most importantly support homosexual marriage.”
Bullshit. I can think of all sorts of heterosexual marriages that I do not approve of or agree with, but I have no basis to disallow them. You are arguing that not being allowed to interfere with same sex marriages is the same thing as being forced to agree with them. That is a false equivalence.
I don’t know how many people who aren’t “into” politics know this, but Ken Mehlman, no less than the chair of Chairman of the Republican National Committee, and former top white house aide, is gay (still in the closet, though).
Makes the Republican party’s bigotry toward homosexuals seem that much more hollow and sad.
As we’ve seen in the Iraq war, the Republican party refuses to look at itself in the mirror. No matter how misguided and destructive their policies are, both foreign and domestic, they show that they are the party of intolerance, arrogance, and pure ignorance.
Republicans equal rich white guys (the real power cloaked in marketed morals) with a few token minority groups and extreme right wing radicals. They cant afford for gays and minorities to go away because it would uncover there hypocricy.
Borat,
You need to stop repeating Blog’s as your sources. This a quote from Mehlmanm,
“Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman had a reason to shmooze at the jam-packed Bloomberg after-party for the White House Correspondents dinner on Saturday. Asked about 2004 stories suggesting he might be gay, Mehlman told us: “I’m not gay. But those stories did a number on my dating life for six months.”
And besides even if Mehlman was gay, what business it of yours to make public someone’s sex life or preference?
The point most were making about working with gays or being around gays is to be mature and professional.
It cannot be argued that it is not Republicans and some conservatives who cause homosexuality to be something “dirty” to be kept secret. That is a demonstrable fact. Some posters here are further proof.
SO if someone is for lifting that veil of “shame” on some who so hate themselves that they live a lie, well I say good on exposition. Whether they know it or not, those thus “exposed” are being HELPED!
“Tolerance” is a choice for gay people to accept as a compromise between hatred and acceptance. As a gay man, If I can’t have “acceptance”, then to hell with toleranace. I simply don’t give a crap if people hate me or “tolerate” me. I have many fine friends and acquaintances who accept me. I don’t need half-hearted “toleranace”, I already have all the acceptance that I need.
It is not tolerant to keep denying gays their rights as equal citizens. And that includes the right to marry, to have kids, to have the same rights in housing and jobs. No, I don’t see the republican party being tolerant at all. I see them being hypocrites.
Sorry I posted this in the open thread and meant to post it here.
Click the pop up on “view how different states treat same-sex marriage.”This is not an issue that belongs in the constituition except to state that the federal government shall set no policy as to define marriage. Leave it to the individual states and the people and overwhelmingly it seems to take care of itself.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html
That won’t work Kia. Just as leaving it to states rights will not work with the tricky question of abortion.
Our Founders were wise. With the equal protection clause, they assured that America would not develop into a collection of enclaves where peoples rights and liberties would be up to the tyranny or predjudice of the local mob.
THINK how truly wise this was. Imagine instead states where this or that thing was perfectly acceptable and legal and other states where the same this or that was a high crime!
(They even managed a “nice” exception to that to keep slavery legal for a little longer)
Neither abortion NOR gay marriage can be decided by states rights because of the wisdom of the equal protection clause.
I think every guy knows or knows of a guy who is obviously not your typical male. For instance, I grew up next to a guy, my age, who was in no way ever cut out to be straight. I don’t remember a time when Jay ever didn’t play with dolls and tea sets. I sat through a couple tea parties with him, dolls all around, and after a few of these I was like Jay, this is boring as hell. We can go shoot BB guns at GI Joe if you want, but these dolls and talking to them is seriously boring shit. We drifted away after that, because Jay wasn’t interested in GI Joes.
Not only that: his arms bent wrong. You know how the arms of some women bend “wrong?” I mean, the inside of the elbow is way out front, it looks like their arms are bent inside out sometimes (this is attractive in women, btw, but on guys it makes me think wtf?). Jay had those arms, too. And he swished when he walked, especially when he got older. The guy just obviously had fries going on with his shake.
I think that human sexuality is probably defined by a continuous spectrum; sexuality in all mammals is not discrete, I suspect. I think it’s possible for some people to be 100% attracted to the same sex, the opposite sex, and all points in between. For most people, cultural indicators herd them into a choice they’re entirely comfortable with. It doesn’t work for everybody though, especially those who are stuck with something near 100% attraction to the same sex.
And this is perfectly normal. To insist that human sexuality is discrete (in Nathan’s words, to “act on” that opinion and thus deny some humans civil rights based on this opinion) is wrong.
I suspect that Nathan is, in a “dead man walking” way, a poor, misguided living relic. He and those like him are walking dinosaurs when it comes to understanding sexuality, and I think the future will bear this out. Already those who are married are in the minority in the US, and attitudes like Nathan’s will only strengthen that trend.
Probably doesn’t need to be said, but in my opinion encoding marriage “rules” in the US constitution is unconscionable. What has happened to our core values, the “pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness”?
Political Mom,
Gays don’t get the same rights in employment and housing? What do they do; flash their ‘gay pride’ card when they apply for housing and a job?
It shouldn’t have anything to do with everyday life. Conduct in one’s bedroom or behind the front door of their own house or rented apartment is their business. However, it’s a private affair.
The idea of opposite sexes to marry is to provide a union in matrimony and if they wish to procreate. The issue of procreation has gone topsy turvy with test tube babies and etc.
Why do they want the marriage status to cover same sexes; to get a better tax status on Income Tax returns?
If they want purely equal status that women have in the society, then they need to take some lessons from women. That is, it is not an easy road and be prepared to be discounted, ignored and harassed. You can ask any woman about their horror stories on the job and I bet you even have your own Political Mom.
Will Mother’s day be ousted for Spousal Maternal Unit Day? Will there be unisex toliet facilities? To what point to we carry sameness in a society?
Do we force a Muslim Organization to hire a Gay Man as a secretary or force their Clerics to marry two gay men? And do we do the same to Jewish and Christian Faiths?
At what point do we stop?
My point is, if you want to be gay, then be gay. Don’t ask for special status(es) that will eventually turn our society into an automoton society with no tolerance of religious beliefs or moral reasoning.
That is, what you are asking to do you know.
Excellent point JR.
My biggest concern and I posted this in another thread but don’t remember which so I can’t follow up on your responses.Is in acceptance of gay marriage, what happens to my beliefs as a Christian?I’m all for civil unions.My concern is in giving homosexuals equal rights to everything, is what you see in Canada and what is now defined as hate speech (i.e. the Bible).If some kind of system can be put into place to give homosexuals the rights they would like and at the same time protect mine to believe and practice the faith that I choose, it’s fine with me.Ultimately my opinion on homosexuals and many other social issues (abortion) is it is really none of my business. In the end it is between you and God.
KIA, “leaving it to the states” just shifts the injustice one level.
I don’t care what you call it so long as they have the same rights under the law as any married couple.
“My concern is in giving homosexuals equal rights to everything, is what you see in Canada and what is now defined as hate speech (i.e. the Bible).”
P.S. I’m aware of the MacKinnonite laws in Canada, but I question the accuracy of this.
JM,
Ken Mehlmann denied he was gay? Well then that settles it!
But whether he, or Mark Foley, or Harriet Miers, or a few other Republican congresspersons are gay or not is indeed their own personal matters.
But it’s relevant to the public discourse when the same party they belong to wants to enact a whole bookshelf full of legislation denying them the same rights that heterosexuals have.
When that same Republican party and their base of supporters directs such hatred toward them, sees their condition as a mental disease in need of counseling, and uses that hatred as a pointed political weapon – then yes – it is relevant. The role of prominent gay people in the Republican party becomes is most certainly a reasonable discussion to have.
Borat
“a whole bookshelf full of legislation denying them the same rights that heterosexuals have.”
Please enumerate the “bookshelf full of legislation”.
Borat,
As I said before, what business is it of yours whether he is homosexual or not.
If he isn’t I would imagine he could sue you for furthering a false rumor on the Internet and destroying a heterosexual lifestyle.
I and many other Republicans have no hatred of gays, it’s just that passing legislation to make it where religious faiths are bullied by said legislations to conform to some lifestyle. It should never happen.
Nathan’s explanation that Republican can love the sinner and hate the sin is disingenuous in the extreme, like so much of what he writes.
I blogged on this a few weeks ago on this same topic. Here’s a snip and a link–
REALLY QUEER–RIGHT WING GAY-BASHING GAYS
“Consider this—18 states have passed bans on same-sex marriage including my home state of Kansas. Texas recently prohibited gay couples from becoming foster parents, a restriction that borders on a hate crime and shows a sickening callousness toward abused children; a proposed law in Alabama would ban from schools any work of literature written by a gay author. On to the bonfires would have to go “Leaves of Grass,” “The Glass Menagerie,” “Dr. Faustus,” “The Importance of Being Ernest,” “Of Human Bondage,” and perhaps “The Gettysburg Address.” Republican Congressman Rick Santorum has gone so far as to say that same-sex marriage could lead to Man Weds Dog.
“Of course, President Born-Again has sanctioned the pogrom by throwing the full weight of the Oval Office behind, not the acceptance of diversity, but the further segregation and alienation of the gay community. His championing of the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage can result in only one outcome—to further demonize the one minority that remains fair game. So much for the ‘I’m a uniter, not a divider’ crap.”
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/mistertrickster/12
And here’s a link to a “Justice Sunday” where radical right-wing fundies and their political fellow travelers get together in an orgy of gay bashing:
Frank Rich summed it up perfectly–The “Justice Sunday” mob is also lying when it claims to despise activist judges as a matter of principle. Only weeks ago it was desperately seeking activist judges who might intervene in the Terri Schiavo case as boldly as Scalia & Co. had in Bush v. Gore. The real “Justice Sunday” agenda lies elsewhere. As Bill Maher summed it up for Jay Leno on the “Tonight” show last week: ” ‘Activist judges’ is a code word for gay.” The judges being verbally tarred and feathered are those who have decriminalized gay sex (in a Supreme Court decision written by Justice Kennedy) as they once did abortion and who countenance marriage rights for same-sex couples. This is the animus that dares not speak its name tonight. To paraphrase the “Justice Sunday” flier, now it’s the anti-filibuster campaign that is being abused to protect bias, this time against gay people.”
Anyone who doesn’t get with this program, starting with all Democrats, is damned as a bigoted enemy of “people of faith.” But “people of faith,” as used by the event’s organizers, is another duplicitous locution; it’s a code word for only one specific and exclusionary brand of Christianity. The trade organization representing tonight’s presenters, National Religious Broadcasters, requires its members to “sign a distinctly evangelical statement of faith that would probably exclude most Catholics and certainly all Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist programmers,” according to the magazine Broadcasting & Cable. The only major religious leader involved with “Justice Sunday,” R. Albert Mohler Jr. of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has not only called the papacy a “false and unbiblical office” but also told Terry Gross on NPR two years ago that “any belief system” leading “away from the cross of Christ and toward another way of ultimate meaning, is, indeed, wicked and evil.”
Capn,
‘Activist judges’ is a code word for gay.”
On what planet?
Look, I couldnt even read all of the posts on this one.It is simple what is going on here.The mainstream press, which includes the vast majority of Democrats, wants to hurt Bush and help the Democrats.The left is truly bigoted, thinking that the right can’t tolerate and can’t understand people who are different.Yes, that is what I am saying. Your knee jerk belief that the right is bigoted, is actually a very shallow, very bigoted belief.Phylis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum has long been a leader on the Right. She has a gay son.Dick Cheney has a gay daughter.Your logic is perverted on this one, lefties.You call those of us who have gay family members or gay friends “hypocrits” if we don’t swallow the entire radical gay agenda, including gay marriage?That is bizarre.Especially since many Gay people do not support the radical gay political agenda.On this issue, it is the left that won’t allow “shades of grey.”It is not the right that is being hard line or totalitarian, it is the left.Would you prefer that all the Republicans who had gay family members or gay staff members disowned those gay family members and fired the gay staff members?There is no logic in your complaint.It is not your false claim of “hypocrisy” that bothers you.It is the fact that Republicans are quite capable of tolerance, and the fact that the intolerant left can’t allow that message to get out!
Your right Nathan, we should stop saying Repbulicans hate gays. Because really they hate Christians. Have you read Tempting Faith? Republicans in the White House refer to Evangelicals as Nut Jobs.
Sure, Paul, the Republicans are so tolerant that they lead the drive to add a new amendment to the US constitution, one that would for the first time in American history specifically exclude the extension of certain civil rights to a class of American citizens.
Like JM said above, tolerant on what planet?
Sigh. . .it’s a VERY simple concept, folks.
The spiritual etc. concept of marriage is not the government’s business. Your church cannot and would not be forced to sanction any marriage, no matter what.
Legal matrimony is a civil contract, and a huge numbers of rights are attached to it.
Government has no business discrimating against couples on the basis of sex or religious affiliation.
There no real difference between disallowing gay marriages and disallowing, say, Methodist marriages. Or interracial marriages. It’s just using the state to run other people’s lives according to one’s own religious mandates.
That is un-American, if anything is.
I think everyone is missing the point here. It’s not that Republicans hate gays. It’s that Republicans use gay issues as well as abortion as bait to those in their base. I saw a Republican stratgist on CNN who said Republicans will never over turn Roe vs. Wade nor will they ever make a federal amendment banning gay marriage. He said if they did they would never have another issue to run on. It’s sad to see the base continue to be played as fools. The question isn’t about special rights its about equal rights. If straight people can marry then so should gays. The constituion says equal rights for all. If the constitution wasn’t a problem they wouldn’t be trying to amend it. And no, people will not want to marry dogs or cows,no one can do that so the constituion would now allow for it. We live in a democracy that is not set up on religious laws. Like it or not, you can have your own opinion or belief about anyone or anything, but it does not mean your beliefs will make the laws for everyone else. As Christians that should scare you. If you want religion back in schools, fine. But don’t be mad when your child eats a Happy Birthday to Islam cake. Or when your child comes home and says he learned all about Islam or Buddha and now wants to be something else. I would much rather teach my child about Religion than a teacher of another faith who knows nothing about my religion.
For all of you who are tired of reading all the conservatives rants and paranoia. Read this article. It explains everything…
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1142722231554&call_pageid=1105528093962&col=1105528093790
Dakota,
An example of how to do a scientific paper based on making your assumptions into reality.
Saying that whiney children grow up to be conservatives.
I suppose the Berkley professor who authored the paper will conclude that the color of the Chinese flag is red and yellow, that all Chinese immigrants will become Kansas City Chiefs fans.
Where did these students come from that were studied? Was it from a country school in the middle of Kansas? I doubt it.
Was it from the Amish Community northwest of Wichita? Oh yeah, all those Amish liberals.
Have you ever taken Child Development Psychology? Do you realize that activities, environment, peer pressure and many other factors have to do with what an adult will become than just being a whiney four year old?
Another example of junk science used to bolster a position. Totally sad, very sad.
Pedant,
“Like JM said above, tolerant on what planet?”
Don’t recall writing tolerance in that usage. I was referring to the phrase used by Capn in his blog entry ‘Activist judges’ is a code word for gay.”
I replied “On what planet?”
You’re right Rage, marriage is just another legal right that should be availble to every adult American citizen. It has nothing to do with religion, that aspect is up to the individual.It’s like saying only heterosexuals can vote, enjoy freedom of speech, or have access to due process.
Nathan, even if being homosexaul was a choice, people should still have the same rights. Rights should not be based on religion beliefs.
I think the point that Nathan was trying to make, correct me if I’m wrong, that once legislation is passed into law that allows gays all rights now afforded married couples, then there will some rough times ahead for religous faiths of all ilks.
How, you say? Okay, a Baptist Preacher refuses with the consent and support of his congregrationto allow a homosexual marriage to take place in the Church’s sanctuary. A court rules in the favor of the homosexual couple stating that being church members, the rules of church explicitly state that any member of the church may use the sanctuary for a marriage ceremony.
Now what we have here are courts telling a Church how to conduct their church business with no regard to their beliefs.
And, it could get worse when groups start pounding all religious faiths through law suits for numerous purposes.
The entire notion of hate crimes is stupid and counterproductive. You see, all violent crimes have hatred as the indicative motive. To say that one person should be penalized more harshly because he killed somebody of a different race rather than if he killed someone of his own race is unjust. Hate crimes legislation is counterproductive because it fosters and perpetuates the idea that we the people of the American society can be categorized in different groups. How can equality be achieved if our laws reflect the fact that we are not all equal?
JM,
Your given situation would never happen in Canada because of the following:
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
No Canadian preachers are going to jail for preaching against homosexuality like the Evangelical leaders like Dr. James Dobson falsely proclaims.
ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-250
Bill C-250, authored by New Democratic Party Member of Parliament Svend Robinson, had come under fire from Focus on the Family and some other religious groups based on the argument that it prohibits the preaching of various Scripture condemning homosexuality. Supporters of the bill consider this argument groundless due to provisions that protect religious groups from prosecution should they criticise homosexual behaviour in a way that does not promote hatred.
from the same source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-250
Will,
I don’t know Canadian law or conventions of their faiths.
My point was Preachers and their congregrations should practice their particular faith without interference from the Courts as long as it doesn’t endanger or menace their neighbors.
I’m not particular fond of the faith that use snakes in their worship, but if they want to do it, so be it. Just keep those snakes away from me. heh
PedantYou cant give “rights” to one group without taking them away from another group.The “granting” of full marriage rights to gays WOULD impact the free association clause and other rights we all have under the Constitution, including religious observance rights.Churches and religious schools already find themselves in Court over morals clauses, when they fire people who do not live by the creed of their organizations, sometimes blatantly so.Liberals never worry about “unintended consequences.” There are consequences, bad results, that will come from granting full legal rights to gay couples.It does not make anyone “hateful” or “homophobic” to point out those unintended consequences.
Well Canada is predominantly Protestant Christian, but it has a steadily growing number of Muslims as well. I don’t foresee anyone hauling preachers or imams to court because they say things like: “homosexuality is wrong.” that is protected by the subclause of Canadian Bill C-250 which I have posted above. However, if preachers and imams say things like: “homosexuals should be stoned to death.” Then, yeah that’s inciting hatred and potential violence against homosexual citizens. If I were you I wouldn’t worry too much about it.
Churches and religious schools already find themselves in Court over morals clauses, when they fire people who do not live by the creed of their organizations, sometimes blatantly so.
Paul,Any proof of that?
Im not sure why people keep saying churches will be forced to marry gays. As a lawer I can tell you a church can refuse to marry whoever they want currently and there have been many legal challanges to that not one of which has won. So don’t use that as an excuse.
JM your rationale for it being OK to discriminate against gays is downright ridiculous. And yes, gays are kicked out of houses and jobs because of who they are. Allowing them rights does not take away from anyone else’s right, nor will it turn the whole world upside down. To say that marriage if for procreation is absurd as well. Obviously we can procreate just fine without marriage. Marriage is a commitment, sometimes religious, sometimes not. The state should not allow discrimination when it is a state institute.
Wow, I guess the article was right. The conservatives read it and start whining right away. lol :)
I want to know what determines if someone really is liberal or consrevative. I agree with both sides on different issues. I am very much pro-life, so does that make me conservative? I think gay people should be able to get married, does that make me liberal? I think most people are neither. I think a majority of people fall somewhere in the middle.
This thread was originally about the tolerance or intolerance of gays by the GOP, and we’ve gone off course a bit, focusing especially on marriage. So, here’s my argument on that.
First and foremost, in this country, marriage is a civil union. Keep in mind that those who are not Christian or of any religion can marry. What we call a “marriage” does not have to be performed by a minister, rabbi, priest, or any person in religious authority. It can be performed in a courthouse by a civil authority granted permission by law to “marry” a couple. It is a legal institution, in part created for tax laws.
When it comes down to disallowing gays to marry, using the Bible as a basis for this, I often wonder how far this can be taken.
Let’s go the with “choice” idea.Nathan and others believe that homosexuality is a choice. Religion is also a choice, although the majority of people are born into a religion via their family or culture, it is a choice. If Christians (and other religions where applicable) can determine, using their holy books and doctrines, that homosexuals cannot marry, why do they allow those not a part of their religion to marry? Why should Muslims be allowed to marry? Athiests? Pagans? Buddhists? After all, if marriage is a religious ceremony, sanctioned by the Christian God, then those who aren’t a part of that religion would not be married, according to Christian beliefs. Because others have not accepted Jesus, doesn’t that, by Christians’ own teaching, mean that they are sinners or, at best, without the Grace of God and not worthy of his sacrements?
Substitute the word “gay” for “black” or “female” or any part of the population that we have discrimated against in our history, and these arguments can be seen as poor, at best.
Face it, folks. At some point in the future, gay marriage or civil unions will be allowed throughout the U.S. That doesn’t mean that there will always be others who don’t like them or a few who even hate them, just as they do blacks, Jews, or many others. But legislating against them is wrong, whether by birth or by choice.
JR,So what you’re saying is Christians aren’t “good open-minded people who mind their own business?”
Is that what you’re saying? Is it?
(=_=)
JR,
Although the transcript of this past Friday night’s Bill Maher show isn’t up yet so I can’t post this, I caught a comment by Barney Frank regarding Massachusettes gay marriage law. He said that now that some time has passed, the people aren’t concerned with it anymore. They’ve discovered that gay marriage doesn’t weaken other marriages and none of it affects them. (Poor paraphrasing, I’m sure.)
Dakota,
Learn the difference between intelligent discussion and whine. Perhaps I should start using the term blithering for liberals who have no clue of what they are talking about.
Political Mom,
Show me where I have encouraged discrimination against gays under our nation’s current laws.
Kevin,
“As a lawer…” Interesting email too, test.com, turns out to be a learning company based in New York. Can’t say I’ve seen many lawYers or an attorney who use the spelling lawer. Law’er yes, but not lawer.
JR,
As far as I know, the Massachusetts law still stands. In fact, I know someone who recently went there to marry his partner.
Note that Vermont allows civil unions.
Nebraska’s law has been struck down by the Supreme Court. I assume this is because of some sort of language in the law.
Kansas, in my opinion, made a poor choice in the language of its ammendment, harming not only gays, but non-gays where property rights are concerned.
Will,I agree with your view on hate crimes. Ostensibly it makes sense but there are hundreds if not thousands of accounts of police, prosecutors, judges, and the public passing pejorative judgment when gays, blacks, prostitutes, hippies, jews, etc., are hurt, injured, murdered, unfairly prosecuted, etc.Hate crimes help the victims get the attention they need to avoid getting swept under the injustice rug.Fix the system..then change the law.
Sorry JM. It’s just not intelligent discussion. You only attack everyone instead of really debating what they say. Case in point Kevin. Instead of debating if churches can, in fact, deny a marriage in their church, you resort to pointing out bad grammar. lol I didn’t know this was an English Class. If you can’t back up your argument with facts, then don’t try. It only makes you look like a whinner.
“You cant give “rights” to one group without taking them away from another group.”Posted by: Paul F. Rosell | October 22, 2006 at 02:52 PM
I’m being charitable when I say your idea that human rights are zero-sum is interesting. Can you expand on your idea of human rights as a zero-sum exercise? Assuming extending human rights to those currently without them, what specific rights are lost to you?
I think your idea of human rights as a zero-sum game certainly seems to say some things about you that are frankly uncomplimentary. It certainly would make it impossible for me to believe you support Bush’s adventures in Iraq on humanitarian grounds. At the least, it makes you appear unpleasantly un-American in suppressing the rights of Americans while insisting on human rights for Iraqis.
“Liberals never worry about “unintended consequences.” There are consequences, bad results, that will come from granting full legal rights to gay couples.It does not make anyone “hateful” or “homophobic” to point out those unintended consequences.”Posted by: Paul F. Rosell | October 22, 2006 at 02:52 PM
Yeah, well let’s not go into who among liberals and conservatives ignore “unintended consequences,” even though Iraq easily gives liberals some pretty powerful evidence to use against conservatives in this assertion – and I note that all you offer are guesses as to what would happen if gays had legal rights to civil unions.
You’ll have to delineate your idea of which “bad results” would result from granting homosexuals full legal “marriage” rights. I’m sure your concerns will prove interesting.
I do note, however, that your post is far less evidence of tolerance than it is evidence for exclusion. Specifically, excluding certain American citizens from certain civil rights based on your uh odd ideas of zero-sum human rights distribution.
I think your comments above clearly belie your claim to tolerance.
Paulie is a shill……..ignore him.
Pot, meet kettle! lmrfsaao
Viva la Raza Blanco!
It does not make anyone “hateful” or “homophobic” to point out those unintended consequences.”Posted by: Paul F. Rosell | October 22, 2006 at 02:52 PM
I would also say that it does not make any “unpatriotic” of “Bush-basher” to point out the consequences of our invasion of Iraq.
“Bushbots never worry about “unintended consequences.” There are consequences, bad results, that will come from invading a sovereign country.
OOPS! Those don’t count as unintended – they were intended consequences.
Posted by: Dakota | October 22, 2006 at 07:30 PM
“Sorry JM. It’s just not intelligent discussion. You only attack everyone instead of really debating what they say. Case in point Kevin. Instead of debating if churches can, in fact, deny a marriage in their church, you resort to pointing out bad grammar. lol I didn’t know this was an English Class. If you can’t back up your argument with facts, then don’t try. It only makes you look like a whinner.”
What part of my postings were not discussions or at least questions?I pointed out Kevin’s misspelling because many people pretend to be something that they are not, like attorneys. If he wanted to post any of the court cases where churches have been sued (successful or unsuccessful,) he could of, but he didn’t. He just made a very generalized statement without providing any evidence.
I’m not sure why I’m wasting my time on you, you will just say “whiner, whiner” and go hide back in your hole. It’s a classic liberal attack method. That is, attack the person and not the issue. Or attack the political party, not the issue. Make sweeping generalizations without reference and brand someone a biggot, hater or some other tactic. Now if you want to discuss the topic of the subject, go ahead, but I doubt you will, because you find it easier to just call names.
JM,
Wanna play grammar/spelling cop?
“If he wanted to post any of the court cases where churches have been sued (successful or unsuccessful,) he could of,”
HE COULD HAVE There are more, but I’ll leave it at that. I just wanted to point out that in your pointing out his mistake, you made your own.
Posted by: RD | October 22, 2006 at 09:20 PM
Mine was a grammar mistake, his spelling of ‘lawer’ I suspect was not a spelling mistake, typographic mistake maybe.
However, coupled with a fake email address I find the post suspicious. Prove me wrong.
JM you are new here.Do you REALLY wanna “earn your spurs” here by accusing someone of dishonesty because he dropped one letter from a word? Bit of a stretch that. So far JM, you aint (grammar misuse intentional) much more than a blow hard.
Paul F Rosell?
I think the abolition of slavery “took freedom away from one group and gave it to another” didn’t it? Would you care to argue that THAT should not have happened? I mean it DID have “unintended consequences” you know.
Sheesh Paul you embarrass yourself with every post. I’m starting to think you enjoy it.
RD? I thought some judge had struck down gay marriage in Mass. Apparently I was mistaken. Got more to say on this but let’s see if prollie Paul comes to whine that I treat him badly or JM finds an error in my sentence structure.
JR,
Unless the law change in Mass. was recently, gay marriage remains the same. It’s hard to keep up, I know.
I gave up correcting spelling and grammar a long time ago. Conservatives seem to be less concerned with it than liberals are. ;) Not that I haven’t spelled something wrong. I have. And I notice my fingers don’t always type the word my brain is thinking. That’s been happening a lot lately.
Well, Paul’s right about slavery, JR.
After darkies got emancipated, Paul Rosell’s great-great-great grandparents didn’t have anybody to pick cotton and spit polish their shoes.
Conservatives have been trying to get back to “the good old days” ever since.
Paul F. Roswell, putting the CON in conservative for over two decades.
Back to the ‘lawer’ thing. The reason I pointed the spelling out that most graduates of law school that have completed the bar exam refer to themselves as attorneys. Lawyer is a common term; I have just have not seen too many in the law profession use the term Lawyer when referring to themselves.
That and the fake email address peaked my interest.
JM,
Fair enough. I’m no attorney/lawyer, but I often refer to those who are as attorneys. I assumed the two words were used synonymously.
Capn,
Do you know what party was in power in the Confederate states and was the stronghold party of the KKK for years? I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t Republican.
Your point JM? Parties evolve. Would you care to go back to the Tories and Whigs to make your point?
I said I had more to say.
“GOP leadership tolerates closet gays”
That’s the title of the header.
(For the record, the GOP leadership also tolerates and even abbetts a child solicitor in the form of Mark Foley when it is politically expedient.)
Nathan says he has gay friends. I’m not calling him a liar, but I’d be interested in that dynamic. “I’m convined that you choose to live a lifestyle that is an abomination to God! Let’s go for pizza.”?
I digress.
“Tolerance” is an interesting word. It sounds all warm and accepting. But is it? How is it that you “tolerate” folks you hide away or shame into living a lie out of self hatred or shame?
We bloggers have meetups sometimes. I could “tolerate” Paul Rosell for the length of a meetup. I could even try to be nice to him. I don’t like the SOB but I could try outta politeness.
Starting to get the idea?
A gay person leading an effort to “out” gays in the GOP is NOT attacking those folks. Such a person is HELPING THEM. Who feels acceptance and self worth from having to live a lie?
“I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t Republican.”
Dixiecrats aka the current Republicans.
J R
“Your point JM? Parties evolve. Would you care to go back to the Tories and Whigs to make your point?”
No, just back to the mid 1960s. If you check the voting record, you will find it was Republicans that were the folks pushing for Civil Rights act. Many people think the opposite, that it was the Democrats, which is false.
Hmm, I have different methods and opinions, so something must be wrong with me? Interesting…
So, can you prove that ”
GOP leaders tolerates and even abbetts a child solicitor in the form of Mark Foley when it is politically expedient.)”
I want to see you prove it, provide some facts, let’s get out the hard evidence. I’m ready, waiting, well…where is it.
No? Okay go forth with your blithering then.
The evidence abounds JM. I’ll recapitulate it for you tomorrow is someone else does not do it first.
Tomorrow, okay I’ll wait.
Remember:evidence and confirmed facts
…not hearsay or supposition.
From the stats below, you’ll see that Democrat or Republican didn’t matter much. It was the South that voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
If you remember, it was during the 60’s and into the 70’s that those in especially the South who had been Democrats changed to the Republican party. A lot of this was because of the Civil Rights Act. Those new Republicans were also called Dixiecrats.
Civil Rights Act of 1964
By Party and RegionThe Original House Version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)The Senate Version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Wallace Bennett of Utah, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Milton R. Young of North Dakota opposed the measure)
Note on spelling. It really helps the discussion when correct spelling is used, e.g., “piqued my interest” vs. “peaked my interest,” etc. Often I have to read the posts out loud to find the intended homophone that would correctly convey the meaning.
On topic, I suggest that the gov’t abolish its laws on marriages, leaving it up to religious communities where they’ll be free to pick and choose whom the blessing shall be conferred, within bounds, e.g., of age, prior commitment, and own cognizance. Instead, the gov’t can simply stick with gender neutral civil unions, automatically given to marriages, but also available to those who chose union outside faiths, bound by the same restriction similar to above.
Very true rox. I grew up as a Republican in the Dixiecrat-dominated Deep South. There was a strong split between the “National Democratic Party” and the “Southern Democrats”. It took several years beginning with Wallace and going through to the Reagan years for the entire transition to take place. Not only did Dixiecrats become Republicans; they now largely dominate the Republican Party.
Roo Haa – agree 100% – this is largely what I have been saying. “Render unto Caeser … and unto God”. Marriage – church; union – state. I would continue to allow Priests etc to fill out the civil documents as they do now; I would also allow them to “discriminate” as to who they do that for.
Is it any wonder that those southern Dixiecrat states — no Republican has some of the worst education records in the nation? They don’t want an informed electorate?
But Ben — doesn’t the bible say you cannot / should not serve two masters ?
Posted by: RD | October 23, 2006 at 12:37 AM
“From the stats below, you’ll see that Democrat or Republican didn’t matter much. It was the South that voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.If you remember, it was during the 60’s and into the 70’s that those in especially the South who had been Democrats changed to the Republican party. A lot of this was because of the Civil Rights Act. Those new Republicans were also called Dixiecrats.”
It was a good try on revisionist history, but unfortunately trying to spin the Democratic Party’s position will not work with me.
For one, your statistics come right out of Wikipedia. Do you know who can put up information on Wikiedia? Me, you and yes even a full fledge member of the Ku Klux Klan can post anonymously on Wikipedia. It’s a suspect source to say the least.
Second, your term Dixiecrat. Many often confuse where the term comes from. The term comes from a group of Democrats in 1948 who were explosively upset about Harry S. Truman’s Civil Rights platform at the Democratic Convention. The Dixiecrats dissolved after the election in 1948.
So, you can play revisionist history if you want, but Southern Republicans were not Dixiecrats. It was and still is a misused term.
To break down the vote by southern democrat/republican and northern democrat/republican to my point view muddles the situation. There was no such thing as the southern Democratic or southern Republican Party. Either you were Democrat or Republican. And by the way, that is how the official record is held by Congress, by party (Dem or Rep.)
A Democratic Party Senator, Robert C. Byrd filibustered for 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier in an effort to defeat the Civil Rights Legislation. Senator Byrd is still a Democrat and still serves in the United States Senate. It was surmised that he tempered his segragationist views to get along, but did not really change his philosophy towards minorities.
So, you tried, but in my opinion unsucessfully to revise history to make the Democrats look good. Some of the most racist and segragationist places I have visited in the 1960s were in the North.
I give you an ‘E’ for Effort, but you failed to prove your case because of questionable sources and misused terms.
JM – when I was growing up (after 1948 by the way) we still used the term Dixiecrat in the South. This persisted through 1960 with “No Pope Here” opposition to Catholic Kennedy on down through the rest of the 60s with the Wallace phenonemon, separate slates of delegates to Chicago in 1968 and further on. You are correct about Byrd; however yo miss a number of others including David Duke, Strom Thurmond and others.
It was largely because the Dixiecrats (including Lester Maddox) dominated southern politics that I grew up as a Republican in Georgia. The Southern Republican Party was the alternative to the Southern Democratic Party. I know – I was there.
I honestly welcome the concept of gay marriage, because, honestly, the homosexuals can’t jack it up any worse than heterosexuals already have. Plus, it’s sad when your gay friends who are life partners have to basically construct an LLC just to make sure that their bigoted relatives don’t steal everything of their partner’s when and if they die first.
Earlier posts from JM
“Do you know what party was in power in the Confederate states and was the stronghold party of the KKK for years? I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t Republican.”
and
“No, just back to the mid 1960s. If you check the voting record, you will find it was Republicans that were the folks pushing for Civil Rights act. Many people think the opposite, that it was the Democrats, which is false.”
In response to RD’s post, which directly addresses those complaints.
“It was a good try on revisionist history, but unfortunately trying to spin the Democratic Party’s position will not work with me.”
Translation. Cover your eyes and go la la la!
“For one, your statistics come right out of Wikipedia. Do you know who can put up information on Wikiedia? Me, you and yes even a full fledge member of the Ku Klux Klan can post anonymously on Wikipedia. It’s a suspect source to say the least.”
Argue with the source. This is not an appropriate strategy. RD gave you specific voting tallies. Discounting them because they came from Wikipedia is not a valid strategy because of the specific nature of the information. To refute those statistics you need to try to cite primary sources that show different information. The ball’s in your court JM, not RD’s. I doubt you will be able to cite different statistics because, quite frankly, the Wikipedia statistics are almost certainly accurate. Wikipedia does of course have the vulnerability of having people post all sorts of things in an entry. However, there are a lot of people who are involved in the project who literally monitor entries for accuracy. Revised historical records do not survive on Wikipedia. Voting records are historical records.
“Second, your term Dixiecrat. Many often confuse where the term comes from. The term comes from a group of Democrats in 1948 who were explosively upset about Harry S. Truman’s Civil Rights platform at the Democratic Convention. The Dixiecrats dissolved after the election in 1948.
So, you can play revisionist history if you want, but Southern Republicans were not Dixiecrats. It was and still is a misused term.”
You want to be specific, the term Dixiecrat was still in use after they dissolved. More to the point, most of the Republicans who control politics in the south are the ideological descendents of the southern Democrat. Unless one hypothesizes a wholesale migration of northeast to south and south to northeast, there is little else to explain why the northeast eventually became a Democratic stronghold, and why the south is now a Republican stronghold when it was overwhelmingly Democratic as recently as the 1950’s and 1960’s. The obvious conclusion is, the people who were former Democrats are now, or at least their children are now, Republicans. This was in fact predicted by Johnson himself as a consequence for his pushing the Civil Rights Act.
You made a claim about the nature of the Republican and Democratic parties that is irrelevent because the parties have changed historically. Information to this effect has been provided. The burden of proof to refute it is now on you. Attacking Wikipedia and accusing RD of historical revisionism without documentation is not meeting your burden of proof.
Try again.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Try and put that as a source for a serious reearch paper and you’ll find yourself laughed out of the state.
Dividing up the Republicans and Democrats into Northern and Southern strayed away from the theme of one party versus the other.
I did examine the Congressional Record to confirm the voting record and there was no mention in the Congressional record of who was affiliated with whom (northern and southern) As I said previously, the only marked divisions in the official record were by Political Party, not by region (Democrats and Republicans.)
I’m not the one trying to spin the facts. I grew up in that era as well and know most of the information first hand.
JM – what part of the country are you from? What state did you grow up in?
Me, Georgia in the 50s-60s.
Your careful parsing of words from the Congressional record reminds me of Clinton “I didn’t have sex” by carefully defining the terms. You are correct; they “technically” were Democrats; but I knew many of them personally. They were Dixiecrat to the bone.
“Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Try and put that as a source for a serious reearch paper and you’ll find yourself laughed out of the state.”
That’s still an irrelevant defense. The information in the Wikipedia article can be verified.
“Dividing up the Republicans and Democrats into Northern and Southern strayed away from the theme of one party versus the other.”
On other words, I made a claim and I just want to stick with party names, regardless of whether it is really valid to draw an equivalence between the old southern Democrats and the current party because they share the same name. It directly addresses your claim. The geographic division between north and south is easily defined. The reality that geography was more reflective than political party as to how one voted for the original Civil Rights is easily supported by applying said easily defined criteria. The reason why you brought up Democrats as the old KKK stronghold was an attempt to point to the Democratic house as not in order regarding tolerance. Historically, however, the descendents of those Democrats are now Republicans. Before you think that I am trying to paint the Republican party as racist, I am not. I am a Republican. However, the influx of socially conservative, authoritarian types who wish to be able to have their beliefs reflected in at least their local governments into the Republican party came from southern Democrats (informally called Dixiecrats or Boll Weevil Democrats). At the same time, the “elitist” social liberals who represented abolitionists in the Northeast during the mid 19th century eventually became Democrats. We have had a probably a 60% or so flip in the parties in the last century, with the Republican flip occuring in the 1970’s and being cemented in the 1980’s. It is not a complete flip. Fiscally conservative pro-business types have remained Republicans, while some pro-labor types have remained Democrats.
“I did examine the Congressional Record to confirm the voting record and there was no mention in the Congressional record of who was affiliated with whom (northern and southern) As I said previously, the only marked divisions in the official record were by Political Party, not by region (Democrats and Republicans.)”
Usually, entries in the Record show the names of representatives and senators followed by the names of states as well as R and D after their names. The criterion used (I suspect) was the states of the old Confederacy verses other states. Using that information, I suspect that you will find that the Wikipedia article provided the correct information.
Ben Huie,
I thought you were about 50ish in age? You knew personally these Congressmen and Senators in your teens? Or have I miscalculated your age? Not that’s it’s relative to the any particular point, but if you knew the southern Politicians during that era personally, I bow to your acquired knowledge.
Posted by: ksagnostic | October 23, 2006 at 11:34 AM
“That’s still an irrelevant defense. The information in the Wikipedia article can be verified.”
Well, maybe in your neck of the woods, but I was always taught to use primary sources as a matter of record. I can’t imagine providing an attorney in a court of law, information from Wikipedia when there are more reliable sources available that do not put a spin on the subject classifying ’southern and northern parts of of a party.’
If you check the record for instance, one can find a Senator A.A. Gore (father of the Vice President by the same name) that voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Thank you, ksagnostic and Ben.
JM, I used Wikipedia because it’s the quickest, but along with it, I compared my own memories of the 50’s and 60’s, along with what I was taught in school at that time, including current events. Why? Because I know wiki isn’t always completely reliable.
The rest has already been explained to you much better than I could have.
JM–
I can’t believe you resurrected this Joe Williamism.
What ad did Jesse Helms run against his opponent with devestating effect?
“The White Hands” ad which showed a white man reading a letter saying his job had to be given to a black man.
What ad did George H. W. Bush to turn around poll numbers on Michael Dukkais in 1988?
“Willie Horton.” And if you need that explained to you, you’re too dumb to talk to anymore.
Who signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson
Which party has all the elected blacks in Congress and which party has none?
Democratic and Republican, respectively.
*****
Now please don’t insult our intelligence with this crap anymore.
Thank you,
The Management
Back to what I perceive the initial post was about: while I do not doubt the presence of gays within the ranks of the Republican party, the problem for the party and the power brokers within is the fact that the mere presence of these folks threaten the so-called “Base” as contrary to their core beliefs. Should a great “unmasking” occur pre-election, the hold on power by the Republicans is threatened, or so the hypothesis goes, because the “values voters” will either not turn out to vote (which I believe somewhat unlikely); or will not contribute their money and time as in the past (which I believe more likely). Either way, the existence of gays allows for cries of “hypocrisy” to ring true, creating a maelstrom within the party structure itself, threatening its hold on the power enjoyed by it in recent history.
This situation, BTW, is why the Foley matter continues to be newsworthy; not in the fact that Foley sent emails and explicit IMs to former pages, bad enough in and of itself; rather the apparent coverup, in an attempt to maintain a majority in the House, together with the dollars raised by Mr. Foley.
Okay, I give.
When faced with facts, attack the messenger.
I can see nothing has changed with Democrats.
JM – 59 years old. And yes, I did know local political types in my youth. I was active in high school and my parents were also active. I remember vividly when they desegregated the public schools in Atlanta. I also remember a UGA-based civil rights group that had as its logo white and black hands grasped in a handshake with the old battle flag as the background.
Charlene Hunter (Galt) of PBS went to UGA and helped break the color barrier. I also remember George Wallace standing in the doorways. Selma. Many more …
I had the honor of meeting Dr. King many years ago in Atlanta.
Tell me this – since you are an expert in Southern politics – which deep south state did YOU grow up in?
I was born in Kansas, raised in Oklahoma and Texas. That’s why I deferred to your knowledge since you lived in Georgia.
My Uncle lived in Atlanta during that time and was associated with some of the better known department stores. He also worked for the government somehow but no one knew in what capacity. I remember speaking with him a few times before he died and was always impressed with the phone in his car. I never did understand his deep racism and was turned off by that aspect of his personna.
I never claimed to be an expert on Southern Politics, although I have studied the ins and out. My objection of the misuse of the term Dixiecrats as applied to others seems to have offended some. But as far as I researched, the term was coined with the Democrats that were opposed to Truman’s Civil Rights plan.
My father-in-law always claimed to be a ‘Yellow Dog Democrat.’ His roots in the south was deep and he didn’t mind exposing the dirty laundry. His grandfather had been part of a large plantation (his grandfather’s father owned it) After the Civil War he moved to Texas and was supposably gunned down for referencing his pride in the Confederacy.
My father-in-law still had relatives that lived in Georgia and would relate stories about Savannah and the politics that occurred. These conversations are actually what got me interested into the historical aspects of Southern Politics and its many twists and turns.
As a genealogical researcher, I found connections in my family to the deep south as well as the North.
On one side of the family during the Civil War, the family in Illinois. My ancestor was a Whig, turned Republican in the late 1850s. On the southern side of the family, I found a wealth of information of family members who lived in North Carolina. I did as a self-interest study, did some deep research on how these families interacted with the politics of the day as time progressed.
I’m not an expert in Politics nor History, but rather an avid researcher who has come to rely on facts and the curious stories that come out of those facts.
I still have relatives in Georgia and North Carolina. It’s interesting to me to hear their perspective on history and politics as we email each other often discussing such things.
My time in Texas was an eye opener and the politics in that state are so convoluted, I’m not sure anyone can figure it out with any degree of success.
With that brief overview, I seek to further my knowledge by means available to me.
“Yellow dog Democrat” – “I’d vote for a yellow dog as long as it’s a Democrat”. Similar to “blue-dog Republican.
“Boll Weavil” – similar to Dixiecrat.
Dixiecrat and Boll Weavil – both terms used through at least the 60s to describe the Maddox (etc) Democrats in the South.
By the way, Lester Maddox was a very interesting person. He cleaned up a lot of the corruption that had been endemic in Georgia under Marvin Griffin. He was a classic populist. In some ways he was similar to a distant cousin of mine – William Jennings Bryant. When I spoke to Maddox he told me he admired Bryant. He also told me that he particularly disliked author William Bradford Huie. He had even made Eisenhour’s enemies list for Execution of Private Slovak. He raised Maddox’s ire for The Klansman. And, leter on, for Who killed the Dreamer (about the assasination of King)
There’s one in the spotlightHe don’t look right to meGet him up against the wallThat one looks JewishAnd that one’s a coonWho let all of the riftraft into the room?There’s one smoking a jointAnd another with spotsIf I had my way I’d have all of them shot
Interesting people you have talked to Ben Huie!
I would have responded earlier, but for some reason, the IP on my computer was blocked by the We Blog section of the Eagle.
I suppose they don’t want me to comment anymore for some reason. So I guess I will move on.
Yes, many interesting people. And I learned something from each of them.
The chairman of the Republican Party, Ken Mehlman, won’t comment publicly on his sexual orientation. There is mucho speculation though.
What’s so funny is that these religious nuts HAVE to know they’re being used by the rich NE republicans, who are the money behind the party and who are for the most part socially liberal, to gain control of the govt and further enrich themselves. That’s why I call wingnuts willing useful idiots.
Meanwhile – in the Foley hearings:
Is Republican staffer Scott Palmer (Hastert aide) lying? Or is Republican Kirk Fordham lying?
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/breaking_news/15829483.htm
Ben,
Are you related to William Bradford Huie?
A link for those interested:http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAhuie.htm
yes
Note that the original useage is as stated by JM but the more general useage post-1948 is in line with what others of us say.
DixiecratFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, searchThe term Dixiecrat is a portmanteau of Dixie, referring to the Southern United States, and Democrat, referring to the United States Democratic Party. Initially, it referred to a 1948 splinter from the party: for over a century, white Southerners had overwhelmingly been Democrats, but that year many bolted the party and supported Strom Thurmond’s third-party candidacy for president of the United States. The emergence of the solid Democratic South followed the end of Reconstruction Period when the then Republicans used the post-Civil War period to help African-Americans emerge from slavery and secure their political and voting rights. When white Southerners reclaimed political control in the late 1800s with the aid of organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and the lynching of black activists, the region gave its political allegiance to the then Democratic Party.
Over the next several decades, as the white South slowly re-aligned from the Democrats to the Republicans, the term came to have a broader usage, including, for example, with reference to the members of the Electoral College who in the election of 1960 voted for Harry Flood Byrd rather than John F. Kennedy, or the white Southern voters and electors who in 1968 supported George C. Wallace.
The term has also been used to refer to conservative white Southerners who remain within the Democratic Party, and those who were formerly Democrats but now identify as Republicans