still gay Republicans! C'mon!

[colfax]

What really confounds me is there are still gay Republicans. I'll bet, however, few of them are in Tampa. This fact is as odd a combination to me as there being a liberal KKK member or a Democratic Tea Partier.

Imagine the look on the face of a flag waver on the floor at Tampa when the guy next to him says, "Hi, I'm Joe, I am a Log Cabin Republican".

These gay Republicans are displeased with their Party's platform, but like Priebus, the RNC Chair.


http://thehill.com/conventions-2012...blicans-say-platform-hurts-but-praise-priebus

 

[Colorforms]

These gay Republicans are displeased with their Party's platform, but like Priebus, the RNC Chair.

You mean the platform of "not buying off their vote with special treatment"?

Gays have to find work too, which is why they're republicans.

 

[zzigzzag]

"And party leaders have tried to distance themselves from the work of the convention’s platform committee, which is dominated by conservatives."

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

[zzigzzag]

You mean the platform of "not buying off their vote with special treatment"?

Cons consider equal rights for any minority to be "special treatment".

 

[Colorforms]

If you define equal rights as "we're going to allow you to do things that if you were a member of another group you couldn't do".

I.E. Buying off the gay vote.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Homosexuals (as a group) receive better treatment from the Republican Party than do ordinary working class Americans. I am far more shocked by the cognitive dissonance required for wage earning voters to pull the lever for a Republican politician than I am by the existence of the Log Cabin Republicans.

All the GOP asks of the gays is to keep it in the closet. Working class Americans are asked to forfeit every benefit that they have struggled for and gained since the Great Depression in order to support the Party.

 

[zzigzzag]

If you define equal rights as "we're going to allow you to do things that if you were a member of another group you couldn't do".

So heteros can't get married? And this is the first year they've ever been provided accommodations at the RNC convention....like the Log Cabin hypocrites?

 

[Colorforms]

heteros can't marry those of the same sex. Why should gays have special privileges?

 

[Yuri Zhivago]

heteros can't marry those of the same sex. Why should gays have special privileges?

ouch, I bet you think woman can kill unwanted sperm in her body with special magic powers.
Why would heteros want to marry into the same sex, dolboyob?. Only homosexuals would like to have the same human rights and marry the ones they like

 

[Colorforms]

I state a verifiable fact and you equate it to magic. There must be a special bus for you.

Pedophiles would like to have sex with children, should we make special laws for them too?

 

[Yuri Zhivago]

I state a verifiable fact and you equate it to magic. There must be a special bus for you.

Pedophiles would like to have sex with children, should we make special laws for them too?

so pedophiles are the same as homosexuals, disgusting con?

 

[Colorforms]

Did I say they were the same? Hmmm definitely a special bus for you.

 

[Arkady]

You mean the platform of "not buying off their vote with special treatment"?

Gays have to find work too, which is why they're republicans.

It's not a question of special treatment. It's a question of whether they should be afforded the same protections as other people. For example, if I'm in love with a black woman (I'm white), we can get married.... and the Supreme Court has ruled that state laws to the contrary are void because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. But if I'm in love with a man (I'm a man), we can't get married in most states, and the Supreme Court has thus far refused to follow its own reasoning to its logical conclusion by giving us equal protection under the law. That isn't a matter of me asking for special treatment. It's a matter of me asking for the same treatment as others -- that the courts protect me against bigoted laws that would keep me from marrying the person I love.

Similarly, if I'm in love with a black woman, and I show up at my company's family picnic with her, and my boss fires me because he doesn't like interracial relationships, I can successfully sue him for violating workplace discrimination laws. He's welcome to dislike interracial relationships all he wants, but he's not allowed to fire people for engaging in them. But if I'm in love with another man, and I show up at my company's family picnic with him, and my boss fires me because he doesn't like homosexual relationships, in most states I will not be successful at suing, because gay couples get "special treatment" in the negative sense -- they can be fired simply for who they are.

There are countless other examples. If I fall in love with someone from another country and marry her, I can bring her here, with her gaining citizenship through our marriage... if its a "her." If I fall in love with a man and marry him (which is legal in a number of states now), there's again "special treatment" in the negative sense -- my marriage no longer grants citizenship, merely because it's a homosexual union.

Special treatment of that negative sort pops up again and again. For example, my gay marriage would be a special exception to the normal rule that lets spouses inherit wealth from their dying spouses without it being taxed, and a special exception to the normal rule that gives power of attorney to the spouse when the other spouse is incapacitated (e.g., for making medical decisions), and a special exception to the normal rule that spouses get federal benefits from their spouses (e.g., spousal military retiree health benefits). Gays also face a special negative exception in the application of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. In nearly all other cases, states have to give full credit to the marriages performed in other states. For example, even if Nevada grants marriages that wouldn't meet the qualifications for marriage in Utah (e.g., no waiting period, no blood tests, first-cousin marriage, marriages of a 17-year old, etc.), Utah still has to recognize those marriages as valid in their own state, the same way they would recognize out-of-state driver's licenses even from states that have lower driving ages or lower testing standards. Yet, there's a special negative exception for gays -- If Nevada grants a legal marriage to two men, Utah is free to simply ignore it.

So, I've listed a whole bunch of examples where gays aren't looking for special treatment, but rather simply looking to get the same treatment others get. Can you cite examples where they're looking for special treatment?

 

[Arkady]

heteros can't marry those of the same sex. Why should gays have special privileges?

Using the same reasoning, one could have defended anti-miscegenation laws (the racist laws of the South preventing interracial marriage) by saying "those who aren't in love with someone of a different race aren't allowed to marry someone of a different race, either, so why should those who are in love with someone of a different race have special privileges?" Fortunately, the Supreme Court long ago saw past that, and realized that state laws banning interracial marriage were a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. State courts have started to follow suit, with similar readings of state constitutions to strike down bigoted state laws that block same-sex unions. I hope it won't be too long before the US Supreme Court sees the light, too.

Out of curiosity, do you think it was OK to have laws against interracial marriage?

 

[Colorforms]

Actually, sexual orientation is included in anti-discrimination legislation. You can sue your boss for firing you for being gay.

There are privileges that life partners should have, but marriage is a religious doctrine and should not be forced upon the public by government.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Those are all good points that you're making Arkady, and I hope that lurkers on PJ will read them so that they might serve some useful purpose. As for the little bunny rabbit to which you are addressing these responses, I see no point in bothering. It is absolutely futile to attempt to engage a poster that will simply repeat known lies ad infinitum in an effort to make reality disappear from their view.

When truth has no value then discussion has no meaning.

 

[zzigzzag]

Superb display of rancid ignorance, deep bigotry and absence of logic, reason or literacy.

Blather on. Somebody has to man the dunking chair for you brainless bigots.

 

[colfax]

Superb display of rancid ignorance, deep bigotry and absence of logic, reason or literacy.

Blather on. Somebody has to man the dunking chair for you brainless bigots.

A friendly suggestion: Whenever replying to a post, use "reply with quote" to make it clear to what and to whom you're replying

 

[Arkady]

Actually, sexual orientation is included in anti-discrimination legislation. You can sue your boss for firing you for being gay.

There are privileges that life partners should have, but marriage is a religious doctrine and should not be forced upon the public by government.

Some states, including my own, include sexual orientation as a protected class, preventing people from being fired for it, just as they couldn't be fired for being Jewish, black, a Republican, or a veteran. But many states do not:

http://www.friendfactor.org/blog/do...re-your-friends-could-be-fired-for-being-gay/

If you think sexual orientation should be included in anti-discrimination legislation, as you wrongly thought it was, then write to your Congress member, since there is proposed legislation that would protect gays from employment discrimination:

http://www.hrc.org/laws-and-legislation/federal-legislation/employment-non-discrimination-act

As for the claim that marriage is a religious doctrine, that's actually not quite right. It is, among other things, a COLLECTION of differing religious doctrines. For example, in some Jewish doctrines, a marriage cannot exist between a Jew and a gentile. In the Catholic doctrine, a marriage cannot exist with a divorcee. In many faiths, a marriage cannot exist unless sanctified by a specific religious ceremony presided over by an ordained member of their clergy. In some faiths, marriages can't exist between members of different races or social castes. And, of course, in some religions marriages can't exist between people of the same sex (whereas other religions allow such marriages).

In most cases, the government lets the churches defend their own doctrines, but doesn't put any official stamp on them. It keeps church and state separate, rather than taking sides in religious disputes. For example, if a Catholic Church wants to refuse to grant a marriage to someone who was previously married and got divorced, that is entirely their religious right -- but it's not their religious right to insist that the government not do so. If some Protestant wants to get remarried after divorce, the government will recognize that marriage, even if the Pope would insist the first marriage is still in effect and the second one is void.

Yet the government makes a special negative exception for gays.... because SOME churches don't recognize those marriages, the government refuses to let gays get married. That's no more legitimate than if the government outlawed marriages between Jews and gentiles or between Brahmins and Untouchables.

 

[colfax]

Some states, including my own, include sexual orientation as a protected class, preventing people from being fired for it, just as they couldn't be fired for being Jewish, black, a Republican, or a veteran. But many states do not:

http://www.friendfactor.org/blog/do...re-your-friends-could-be-fired-for-being-gay/

If you think sexual orientation should be included in anti-discrimination legislation, as you wrongly thought it was, then write to your Congress member, since there is proposed legislation that would protect gays from employment discrimination:

http://www.hrc.org/laws-and-legislation/federal-legislation/employment-non-discrimination-act

As for the claim that marriage is a religious doctrine, that's actually not quite right. It is, among other things, a COLLECTION of differing religious doctrines. For example, in some Jewish doctrines, a marriage cannot exist between a Jew and a gentile. In the Catholic doctrine, a marriage cannot exist with a divorcee. In many faiths, a marriage cannot exist unless sanctified by a specific religious ceremony presided over by an ordained member of their clergy. In some faiths, marriages can't exist between members of different races or social castes. And, of course, in some religions marriages can't exist between people of the same sex (whereas other religions allow such marriages).

In most cases, the government lets the churches defend their own doctrines, but doesn't put any official stamp on them. It keeps church and state separate, rather than taking sides in religious disputes. For example, if a Catholic Church wants to refuse to grant a marriage to someone who was previously married and got divorced, that is entirely their religious right -- but it's not their religious right to insist that the government not do so. If some Protestant wants to get remarried after divorce, the government will recognize that marriage, even if the Pope would insist the first marriage is still in effect and the second one is void.

Yet the government makes a special negative exception for gays.... because SOME churches don't recognize those marriages, the government refuses to let gays get married. That's no more legitimate than if the government outlawed marriages between Jews and gentiles or between Brahmins and Untouchables.

Excellent post, thanks for your thoughts!