Oh, for the love of ... what on earth would it take?
Gay Activists Demand a Seat in 'Big Tent'
By Spencer S. Hsu and Vanessa Williams
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, August 30, 2004; Page A07
NEW YORK, Aug. 29 -- The gay Log Cabin Republicans, backed by such GOP allies as New York Gov. George E. Pataki and Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), said Sunday that the party has been "hijacked by the radical right" and demanded that President Bush square his actions with his rhetoric of inclusiveness or risk losing their endorsement. [...] For many gay party activists this week, the Big Tent is a place of uncertainty, bitterness and disappointment. Four years ago, they basked in what many thought was the warmth of compassionate conservatism, meeting with then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush in Austin and backing his campaign for president. Now those leaders say they are confronted with stark choices: to stay home in November, switch parties or support a party that wants to codify discrimination against them in the form of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. [...] Steve Gunderson, a former member of Congress from Wisconsin who is gay and was active in Bush's 2000 campaign, said, "If the president actively pursues that amendment, no gay Republican with integrity can be supportive of his campaign."
HoustonChronicle.com - Convention Notebook: Gay GOP group delays its decision to endorse Bush
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle News Services
A gay Republican group angry about the party's stance on gay marriages won't decide until after the convention whether to endorse President Bush. On Sunday, about 200 members of Log Cabin Republicans earned praise during a meeting with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York Gov. George Pataki and Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. But the group's leaders were still debating whether to stage a convention floor protest today over Bush's support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Executive director Patrick Guerriero told reporters it also was hypocritical for Republicans to showcase moderate convention speakers on television while adopting a platform that was "an insult" to gays and lesbians.
I mean, really, what would it take? The federal marriage amendment position is in the freaking GOP platform, people. Just how much self-loathing is one group required to demonstrate before some of their members say, "You know, a little sanity might be appreciated in these here parts. The people who control the Republican Party hate us. The Shrub hates us -- or at least is willing to voice the opinions of those that do, so there's no functional difference. They are willing to state publicly that we shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else in this country. Why in the name of sanity would we endorse a man who holds these positions? Surely our love of capital gains tax relief should not be allowed to compromise our enlightened self interest. Perhaps we don't want to endorse Kerry -- apart from being political suicide in the Republican Party, to which for some unexplainable reason we are illogically attached, his position on gay marriage is that he doesn't like it either, but at least he's not in favor of the damn amendment -- but maybe, just maybe, we can get more bang for our buck by staying neutral this time. If The Shrub loses a very close election, well, maybe the party will see the our value. (Note: History would not seem to support this position, but remember that we're trying to appeal to the apparently delusional.) At worst, the party will consider us traitors for not supporting The Shrub, and cut us loose ... oh, well, they've pretty much done that anyway, haven't they? So we don't really have much to lose by sitting on our endorsement this time around, do we?"
Ah, well. It would be nice if sanity would enter that peculiar enclave, but one doesn't expect that to happen any time soon.Posted by iain at August 30, 2004 05:23 PM