Search
Forum Home | Login
scatter629
scatter629
Join Date 07/2004
0

To Be Gay and Republican

The GOP Pink Purge

October 24, 2006 10:33:22 PM from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
I almost coughed out my breakfast cereals one Monday Morning when I started reading a St. Peterburg Times article on gay Republican staffers being accused of downplaying the Foley issue to protect a fellow gay Republican (?!) It was a recent article by Bill Adair & Web Allison and the nearest link I could find on the subject was this: Link

A year ago (or when was that time macho Republican gubernator Shwarzenegger started pooh-poohing “girlie-men”?) you wouldn’t connect Republicans with being gay. The adjectives “soft” were mostly thrown at Democrats . Democrats were usually pictured as being “soft” on Terror, “soft” on immigration.. you know. …and of course, the reverse (“tough”) automatically reflects Republican muscle.

Now, before anybody gets any idea, I’d like to state for the record that I’m perfectly comfortable in my heterosexuality and I respect the third sex as human beings . A lot of them are not only talented but decent and responsible members of a community. So, this isn’t supposed to be a gay-bashing issue.

It’s just the idea of that “label” or tag sticking with stereotypic images of either party that gets me when all of sudden, you read : Republican = gay.
All of a sudden (at least to me), three gay Republicans, Congressman Jim Kolbe (Ariz.), Jeff Trandahl, the House clerk in charge of the page program and Kirk Fordham, Foley’s chief of staff, turn out in the investigations that had some conservative leaders surprised at the number of gay operatives in their favorite political party. The concern on Republican “traditional values” comes at a time when Congress failed to pass a ban on gay marriage and other items on the top of the evangelical agenda. Apparently, according to a Congressional Quarterly columnist, Craig Crawford, who is openly gay, “They are giving the impression of a gay Mafia protecting one of their own.”, after admissions were given of knowledge of the Foley escapade since 2001. Mention of a national organization, the Log Cabin Republicans, represented by its executive vice President, Patrick Sammon, surprised me as well. What’s going on? It’s probably politically incorrect to ask for a headcount in either Party and surprisingly, in the Republican Party, but it really makes one wonder – How many more out there remain cloaked ? Will this now be a choice between a Party with Open Gays and a Party with Closet Gays ? The dividing line, is of course, the Dishonesty and Hypocrisy that the Closet Gay has to live thru that would sooner or later influence his effectivity as a public administrator earning the nation’s trust. What would now be the official Republican line on gay marriages ? Would they now be “soft” on this?

But the issue was never really Homosexuality with Foley, but an abuse of the public’s trust and confidence placed in him as the man in charge of the pages’ welfare.

As if to smoothen out the scenery, we had Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice swearing in Dr. Mark Dybul, who is openly gay, to become US Global AIDS coordinator, also recognizing his partner and his partner’s mom, who was referred to as Dybul’s “mother-in-law”. Even for non-gays looking at the Republican scene, the confusion remains at its euphemistic best, interesting.
politics
Locked Post
Search this post
Advanced Search
Subscription Options
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
scatter629
bakerstreet
Join Date 03/2001
+7
Reply #1 October 25, 2006 12:43:36 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
You are aware of the Log Cabin Republicans right? Sure the Republicans play to their strengths, Dems do too. No doubt there's a lot of "closeted" Democrats in Congress that are very homophobic. Strange they've not been overwhelmingly supportive of Gay rights issues of late.

Like Kerry in the last election, or Gore before that. They all play to whatever they think will bring the most votes and keep them out of negative headlines. The fact that congressional leaders wanted to keep Foley out of the headlines is a no-brainer, and the Dems would have done the same thing.

But the standard of "child" here has been abused black and blue. Gay rights organizations have been pushing for lower ages of consent all over the world. It was partially due to their efforts that what Foley did wasn't illegal enough to do anything about.

Are you really so naive to think that had the Republicans purged themselves of Foley they wouldn't have made that about homophobia? You can bet the pages wouldn't have been "children" then. They would have been 'young adults' and while Dems would have agreed with punishing the sexual harassment the main point of fire would have been that they just drummed him out for being gay.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
scatter629
ParaTed2k
Join Date 12/2004
+35
Reply #2 October 25, 2006 12:54:06 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
I laugh my head off at the whole thing. First we're told that it's "homophobic" to care about a person's sexual orientation, then the same people say it's hypocritical for a republican to be gay.

In trying to discredit others, the Gay activists merely become the charicature they try to make others out to be.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
scatter629
scatter629
Join Date 07/2004
0
Reply #3 October 25, 2006 11:59:39 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
"You are aware of the Log Cabin Republicans right?" - Bakerstreet

Actually, no - not until I read the article and I had to write this post to my consternation. Is there a national Log Cabin Democrats organization ?
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
scatter629
scatter629
Join Date 07/2004
0
Reply #4 October 25, 2006 12:13:52 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
"Are you really so naive to think that had the Republicans purged themselves of Foley they wouldn't have made that about homophobia? You can bet the pages wouldn't have been "children" then. They would have been 'young adults' and while Dems would have agreed with punishing the sexual harassment the main point of fire would have been that they just drummed him out for being gay." - Bakerstreet

I think everyone will agree that Foley took it upon himself to resign when faced with his revealing instant messages to pages being replayed over nationwide TV. The Republicans did not purge him and had already placed his name as an official option in the Florida ballot.The fact of Hastert's assertion that he knew only of Foley's dalliances at the time of the ex-congressman's resignation confirm this. If the Republicans had indeed purged themselves of "homophobia", then why do we hear of conservatives within the same Party calling for a return to "traditional values" and initiating this "Pink Purge"?
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
scatter629
scatter629
Join Date 07/2004
0
Reply #5 October 25, 2006 12:28:08 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
"First we're told that it's "homophobic" to care about a person's sexual orientation, then the same people say it's hypocritical for a republican to be gay" - ParaTed2k

I think the more accurate statement would be that it's hypocritical to be a closet gay,regardless of whichever Party, specially when aspiring for public office, since social issues involving gays and non-gays are inevitably affected by legislation. It's just that, historically, the Republican Party, has successfully cultured this "tough" macho image before the American public that it does raise eyebrows to find out (esp. with the Foley issue) that the Party , after all, has a "soft side". It also puts some of their conservative members in a dilemma as to how to adjust to this public revelation.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
View all recent posts
Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top
Stardock Forums v        Server Load Time:   Page Render Time:
Facebook Twitter YouTube Google+