Curse of the Pink Purger

It's things like this L.A. Times article on social conservatives clamoring for a "pink purge" of gay Republican staffers that make me wary of political outings that folk like John Aravosis seem so keen on, quite apart from my general feeling that people's private lives shouldn't be dragged into the public eye just to score political points.

Sure, it might be that, in the very short term, you can get some mileage out of the bigotry you expose by provoking the social cons into this sort of reaction. But look beyond the midterms and you've got a much less appealing setup: A party with an extremist wing that will be watching closely, itching to go Taliban on any new legislative aide with a hint of a lisp, and a moderate wing unlikely to be ready to die on this particular hill once the issue's out of the limelight. In other words, a dynamic with the potential to create a much less tolerant, more uniformly homophobic GOP presence on the Hill. You might bet that in the still-longer term, this will be an albatross around their necks, but it sure seems like a dangerous game to play.

(Hat tip: Via Mother Jones; Cross-posted @ NftL.)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Daniel DiRito||

    I hate to be sarcastic...but not so much so that I won't take an opportunity to point out the difficult position in which the GOP finds itself in the aftermath of the Mark Foley scandal. Here's the snark. The Bush administration and the Republican Party have made a concerted effort to refute claims that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war and here in the U.S. they are now on the precipice of an uncivil war within the ranks of their own formerly lockstep voter coalition. From my perspective there is a degree of poetic justice in that reality.

    It?s important to note just what evangelicals are actually opposing. The actions by Secretary of State Rice were not an endorsement of gay marriage and she was merely conducting the duties of her position. Further, Dybal was being appointed to a position with clear relevance to the gay community yet it still angered a number of evangelicals. We hear over and over again that evangelicals aren't opposed to gays having equal rights so long as they aren't allowed to marry...but if one looks at the reaction to this incident, it is clear that this evangelical rhetoric is meant to disguise their actual agenda...the full rejection of the gay lifestyle through the imposition of legislation that is punitive towards gays. If having a gay man's partner hold the Bible during a swearing in session is unacceptable, just what rights do evangelical believe gays deserve? If this is indicative of compassionate conservatism, I would hate to witness the absence of compassion.

    There is one further irony found in comparing the unrest in Iraq and the schism within the GOP. Millions of Iraqi's made the effort to cast their votes in hopes of enacting a more equitable government and the Bush administration touted the now famous purple fingers as a symbol of success. Similarly, millions of evangelicals went to the polls in 2002 and 2004 believing they were electing leaders who would enact their agenda. The reality is that the votes by millions of Iraqi's did little to advance the goal of democracy in Iraq as powerful groups and individuals continue to battle for influence and power. There is growing evidence that the outcome here in the United States may well be the same.

    Read more here:

    www.thoughttheater.com

  • ||

    When I click on the John Aravosis link, I get an error message that says "Sorry, Page Missing." In light of the topic, I think that error message is hilarious.

  • ||

    Sickening to watch the gay witch hunt democrat activists are embarking on.

    I think these outings will end up hurting the democrats and the democrats running the gay witch hunt far more then it will hurt the republicans.

    The commentary linked below gives a good overview on why these despicable outings are likely to backfire on those doing the outing.

    Mary Katharine Ham commentary.

    Interesting quote from the article

    "What would sit wrong with the Leave-Us-Alone Coalition is a forcible outing campaign for political purposes. It just feels wrong, on a gut level. I'm a Christian and a social conservative. I'm also a small-government conservative, part of the Leave-Us-Alone Coalition, with libertarianish leanings. Instead of making an effort to convince me that the gay rights movement is one worth joining, gay rights activists attack my gay allies on the Leave-Us-Alone front who are already out, and out those who are not. They show themselves to be thugs. They also insult me by suggesting that a political ally who's with me on guns and taxes and life issues is gonna send me running from the Party because I'm all, "eww, he's gay?" "

  • ||

    A quote from one of the social conservatives in the LA Times article also shows why this outing campaign is not likely to accomplish what the democrat activist want.

    "This week, a list that is said to name gay Republican staffers has been circulated to several Christian and family values groups - presumably to encourage an outing and purge. McClusky acknowledged seeing the list but said his group did not produce it and had no intention of using it"

  • ||

    What's the big deal if teh gay are purged from the fundie party? Maybe then they'll realize there's more to life than pandering for votes amongst people who hate you. If the Repubs want to come out and proud as the homophobic party, let them; can't see what could be worse than how they are already the torture party.

  • ||

    Being gay is not a mark of shame. So "accusing" someone of being gay is NOT A BAD THING. Let the outings continue.

    In a bigger sense though, what do we lose by purging gays from the GOP? They vote for anti-gay legislation and support a homophobic administration. Forgive me if I fail to mourn the loss of such a strategic asset to the gay cause. (At what point were they going to switch and quietly reform the Republicans from within? LOL)

    What this really does is strike a dagger to the heart of all those hypocritical social conservatives who preach against sin yet swig big mouthfuls of it when no one is looking. And it will hopefully make people so disgusted with the conservative crusade against social freedoms that the whole sorry business will collapse. Maybe then we will be left alone to lead our lives as gays and lesbians in peach and quiet.

  • ||

    In the last election, didn't the Republicans use the rights of gay people as a wedge issue? Once they chose their vorpal sword, why shouldn't we yuck it up if they cut themselves with it? I'd rather elections were decided on the issues too, and if the Republicans are voted out of power simply because they have gay people on their staffs, then I feel for them. ...but I can't quite reach them.

    As I remember, the Republicans portrayed themselves as defenders of the culture last go 'round. I remember them making the marriage issue emblematic--something akin to how the Shaivo case was supposed to be emblematic of the "culture of life".

    I tend to think of mistrust of government as a good thing generally, so let's let the culture warriors in on the big secret--government is a rotten way to advance the interests of average Americans. If culure warriors really want to be effective in strengthening families, etc., then they shouldn't waste so much time and effort and money supporting some political party. ...and if this issue gets that message across, then I say use it.

  • ||

    "In the last election, didn't the Republicans use the rights of gay people as a wedge issue?"

    No, the GOP for the most part took up maintaining the status quo on marriage laws with regards to same sex couples. They were not against "gay rights".

    Do you mean by "wedge issue" that this was something illegimately created solely as a campaign issue? Hardly, it came to the forefront of the nation's atttention as a direct result of the actions of gay activists and the Massachusetts' Supreme Court. Unless you absurdly think that the Mass Court released it's decison to help the GOP, then this was an issue during that year. Most people here seem to believe that same sex marriage is so right that it must come about by any means necessary, including judicial legislation. They also seem to be rather bitter about the fact that the large majority of people in this country do not feel the same way. Calling your opponents "homophobes" in an attempt to bully them into submission just shows the lack of confidence in the validity of your position.

  • ||

    Since when has long term thinking been the strength of either party?

  • ||

    Calling your opponents "homophobes" in an attempt to bully them into submission just shows the lack of confidence in the validity of your position.

    I understand why that may seem so, but I think it stems from an inability to understand the other side's argument. I see nothing coherent or consistent about social conservative attitudes toward gays except an endless fit of foot-stomping and mouth-foaming. Pardon me if I can't come up with an argument against that, and just call it "homophobic."

    I can't come up with an argument against people who think it's all the Jews' fault, either. I typically just call them "anti-semitic assholes."

  • ||

    They were not against "gay rights"...Calling your opponents "homophobes" in an attempt to bully them into submission just shows the lack of confidence in the validity of your position.

    MJ, I think you should take a closer look at both sides of this tortured issue. I try to stay away from hyperbole and name calling these days but I think you're position is a stretch.

    Limited to the issue of gay marriage, you make some solid points worth considering. But some realities are that the Gay Marriage opposition has become something of a rallying cry for social conservatives to push a larger agenda which is decidedly very anti-gay.

    Which makes me consider OutThemISay's post. One has to wonder about Gay Republicans. It's one thing to want lower taxes and strong defence. But when supporting a party you feel may bring these about requires adopting a "don't ask don't tell" lifestyle and suffer the slings and arrows of a large number in that pary that despise you (Oh yes MJ, the word "despise" is highly appropriate), one has to ask "Why put up with it"?

  • ||

    In the 1956 elections, didn't the Dixiecrats use the rights of black people as a wedge issue?

    No, the Dixiecrats for the most part took up maintaining the status quo on segregation with regards to black people. They were not against "blackrights".

    Do you mean by "wedge issue" that this was something illegimately created solely as a campaign issue? Hardly, it came to the forefront of the nation's atttention as a direct result of the actions of black activists and the United States Supreme Court. Unless you absurdly think that the Supreme Court released it's Brown vs. Board decison to help the Dixiecrats, then this was an issue during that year. Most people here seem to believe that same ending Jim Crow is so right that it must come about by any means necessary, including judicial legislation. They also seem to be rather bitter about the fact that the large majority of people in the South do not feel the same way. Calling your opponents "racists" in an attempt to bully them into submission just shows the lack of confidence in the validity of your position.

  • ||

    If the Republican Party were simply neutral or insufficiently activist on the rights of gay people, that would be one thing. But people who work for for Republicans are working to tear apart gay families. They are working to have people thown in jail for having sex; to have parents stripped of custody of the children they've raised from infants (and in some cases have given birth to); to discriminate against them in employment, housing, and even the opportunity to serve their country; and to have married couples who've dedicated their lives to building a family together declared legal strangers, with no familial rights.

    If educating powerful bigots that gay people aren't monsters in assless chaps, but are actually the hardworking, devoted staffers and colleagues they've come to trust and respect, can make people look at their oppressed neighbors and coworkers differently, then it should be done.

    If the people who have carved themselves out a priviledged position on the backs of those they've helped oppress find themselves receiving the sort of opporbrium that they've helped those bigots hurl at less fortunate, more honest gay people, I'm not going to lose any sleep.

  • ||

    As long as there are votes to be gotten by taking discriminatory positions (the Dixiecrats of the 1950's as joe mentioned, the Republicans of today) you can't be shocked that someone is going to go for those votes.

    I also believe that the number of Republicans who actually believe that gay marriage is going to destroy the instution is about the same as the number of Democrats who truly believe that rich people want all poor people to be unemployed, starving, and stupid. However, when the debate is defined in certained nuanced manners, it's easy for politicos in either party to get the bigot/ignorance vote while being able to claim "pluasable deniability" (e.g., protecting "traditional family values" for the Repubs).

    It's sad that the Repubs feel they have to constantly court these bigots, but if they didn't, we just might get that third party that people around here wish we had, and I doubt it would be anywhere near as likable as the current Republican Party is. "American Taliban" anyone?

  • ||

    In other words, a dynamic with the potential to create a much less tolerant, more uniformly homophobic GOP presence on the Hill. You might bet that in the still-longer term, this will be an albatross around their necks, but it sure seems like a dangerous game to play

    So the outings should stop because long term it might expose the GOP for the bigoted party that it really is ???

    What exactly is the danger?? That If exposed the party might be reduced to a subset of its most bigoted and hateful members? That sounds like a great thing to me. Maybe that will motivate fiscal conservatives who aren't bigots to withhold support from the GOP (and maybe even push them into the Libertarian camp) until the "Grand Old Party" decides to repudiate the hate mongers and bigots in its midst. I don't see a downside here.

    Since the GOP decided to use hate the gay as a political strategy I think it very fair to point out every single homosexual who works with / supports / profits from the GOP. Expose their rank hypocricy and let the bigots see that they are being played for fools -- or let them continue to embrace the bigots and let the bigots try and purge the gay from their midst. Lets see how big the GOP tent really is and what they really stand for.

  • ||

    What exactly is the danger?? That If exposed the party might be reduced to a subset of its most bigoted and hateful members? That sounds like a great thing to me. Maybe that will motivate fiscal conservatives who aren't bigots to withhold support from the GOP (and maybe even push them into the Libertarian camp) until the "Grand Old Party" decides to repudiate the hate mongers and bigots in its midst.

    That's another possibility.

    Even more likely is the fact that this is a generational thing. I bet people in the 50s thought that race relations would never improve, and that laws against miscegenation and the like would last forever. If we wait long enough, it's the attitudes of the people that will change, while the haters and scumbags who derive power from that hate will be long dead and buried.

  • ||

    Generational changes happen because of changes in the culture than people grow up in. Like the modern rejection of racism, these changes happen through concerted efforts to expose the evil of those advancing and profitting from bigotry.

  • ||

    ...and by demonstrating the hypocrisy of those who claim that Group X is outside of respectable society, but whose actions demonstrate that they know better.

    BTW, arguing that it harms a Republican staffer's social and professional life to be outed, while also arguing that Republicans aren't homophobic, is inherently contradictory. It's the type of thing politicians find themselves doing when they've been acting one way around the rubes, and differently amongst themselves.

  • ||

    jf,

    I absolutely agree that this is a generational issue, one that we'll look back at in shame and horror and befuddlement in the quite near future.

    The difference between miscegenation laws and the current situation, is that we're amending state (and trying for the federal) constitutions to ban not just gay marriage, but in some cases even legal contracts between two partners and other such nonsense we have no right meddling with.

    It only takes another legislative vote to change a law, but the bar is very much higher for a constitutional amendment.

    Thanks, social conservatives! What a nice present you've left for us to unwrap later. By the way, what was the bit about hating the sin, not the sinner bit?

  • ||

    Keep them gays in the Republic party, cuz Freak Show needs this guy.

  • ||

    It never ceases to amaze me that people blame gay marriage in MA on "activist judges". It's pretty simple really: People file a lawsuit, it goes to the supreme court, the judges do their job which is to interpret the constitution. Pretty simple. If the people of the state don't like the way their constitution is written, they have the power to amend it to their liking. Apparently the people of MA have not seen fit to amend their constitution, thus by default agreeing with the courts ruling. So people like MJ should get their head out of their ass and deal with it or move to another state if they're so afraid of THE GAY.

  • Jennifer||

    But look beyond the midterms and you've got a much less appealing setup: A party with an extremist wing that will be watching closely, itching to go Taliban on any new legislative aide with a hint of a lisp, and a moderate wing unlikely to be ready to die on this particular hill once the issue's out of the limelight.

    It's the Republicans, not the Democrats, who made homosexuality such a political liability for Republicans themselves. Why let the party get away with pretending to be less bigoted than it actually is? Really, Julian, the mainstream Republicanism is an enlightened and tolerant as you'd like it to be, then the party won't care one way or the other who's gay and who isn't.

    Besides, Republicans are the ones insisting that homosexuality is a moral issue, so they should be happy to have their party's "immoral" elements exposed. Unless (perish the thought!) the party's hypocritical enough to want to stuff its ranks with the type of vile immoral people who are destroying America. No, no, that can't be the case. If gay people are dangerous enough to warrant a Constitutional amendment to keep them in check, then by all means get 'em out of the party behind said amendment.

    I oppose racism, but if I found out one of Stormfront's leading lights had a Jewish grandparent I'd out him too, without worrying whether or not that might damage the organization.

  • Jennifer||

    The difference between miscegenation laws and the current situation, is that we're amending state (and trying for the federal) constitutions to ban not just gay marriage, but in some cases even legal contracts between two partners and other such nonsense we have no right meddling with.

    I suspect the only reason we didn't see similar laws in regards to interracial relationships is that back in the 50s, ANY type of non-marital relationship was more or less ignored; I don't know of any 1950s company that offered employees anything like the "domestic partner" benefits that allow me to get health insurance via my boyfriend's company. So it was a moot point, whether or not a company back then should have been legally allowed to offer domestic-partner benefits to a white guy with a black girlfriend or vice versa.

  • ||

    Calling your opponents "homophobes" in an attempt to bully them into submission just shows the lack of confidence in the validity of your position.

    Did I call someone a homophobe?

  • Jennifer||

    Opposing rights for gay people is not the same thing as opposing gay rights? That's an interesting attempt at rationalization.

    No, the GOP for the most part took up maintaining the status quo on marriage laws with regards to same sex couples. They were not against "gay rights".

    They're maintaining a status quo that denies rights to gay people. You may as well say people who wanted to keep segregation legal were "simply interested in maintaining the status quo in regards to black people. They were not against 'black rights'."

  • ||

    In other words, a dynamic with the potential to create a much less tolerant, more uniformly homophobic GOP presence on the Hill

    And also, of course, much smaller.

    Look, there is nothing in the laws of physics that says you have to have exactly two parties of exactly equal size. Other countries manage with three or more. Also, there is no reason that it has to be the same two for ever and ever, amen - look at what happened to the Liberals in the UK in 1910-1930. A sudden disadvantage for the Republicans does not mean the end of the world.

  • Jennifer||

    "He who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword. And he who gains political power through bigotry shall lose political power through bigotry."

    Suck it, Republicans.

  • ||

    I actually agree with Julian in that I'm not comfortable with the outing of staffers, although I think he may be induldging in a bit of pundit's fallacy about how it will affect the GOP.

    These are actual people's lives we are talking about and some people have very good reasons for not coming out, like having homophobic parents. Futhermore, getting the GOP to fire people because of their sexuality to demonstrate what everybody already knows about social conservatives bigotry doesn't sit well with me either. I'm just not willing to plunge some random staffer's personal life into chaos to potentially move a few congressional seats into the D column (which I doubt it will have much impact on, since if gay rights was a make-or-break issue for you, you weren't voting for Rs anyway), which unless the Dems are planning on repealing the DOMA (which would be news to me), isn't even going to have much of an impact on gay rights.

  • ||

    No doubt social attitudes about homosexuality have changed dramatically just in the past few years. What Jennifer characterizes as gay rights (marriage etc.) were not seen as "rights" at all by other than a very few people 10 or 15 years ago. I think the social conservatives have been blindsided by the rate of change on this issue, and accordingly their response to it has been muddled and inconsistent.

    I'm of two minds on the outing issue, as I think that fucking with people's lives for the sake of cheap political points is dishonorable, but on the other hand that "politics ain't beanbag" and, as such, gay GOP staffers should have long known that they were in a precarious position.

  • Jennifer||

    I'm just not willing to plunge some random staffer's personal life into chaos to potentially move a few congressional seats into the D column

    Sincere question: if it were 60 years ago, would you have considered it acceptable to "out" a segregationist Dixiecrat politician who had a black grandparent? I'd have done so in a heartbeat. Not because I have anything against black people, but because I have quite a bit against a political party that has "hating black people" as a plank in its platform.

    I view outing gay Republicans as no different.

  • ||

    Jennifer,

    I'd probaby have outed such a politican too, but the problem is that the situation isn't analogous. An analogous situation would be outing staffers of said politician with black ancestors with the expectation that the politican in question will fire them to appease his bigoted constituents.

    Say there was a similar list for political appointees in the executive branch - would you favor releasing the list in an effort to provoke a simliar reaction? How about career civil servants or members of the military? In all these cases, the political dynamic would be the same, but at some point you need to draw the line as to whose personal life is appropriate to make an issue out of. I draw it at the politicians themselves who are publicly advocating bigotry.

  • Jennifer||

    I'd probaby have outed such a politican too, but the problem is that the situation isn't analogous

    I disagree. In both cases you're talking about a political party taking the official position that "certain people should be considered legally inferior based solely on who they are." And then it turns out that some of this party's very own members belong to the should-be-legally-inferior class. That's worth mentioning.

    Sincere advice for gay wannabe politicians: if you want a long and distinguished career, don't throw your lot in with the political party which teaches that you personally are what is wrong with America.

    That's also why I don't buy your analogy about gay civil servants or gay military members. (With one exception: I'd out a gay military man who publicly supported the military's ban on gays.)

    you need to draw the line as to whose personal life is appropriate to make an issue out of. I draw it at the politicians themselves who are publicly advocating bigotry.

    As do I, which is why I have no problem outing gay people who belong to the gays-are-destroying-America party, a.k.a. modern Republicans.

  • ||

    ...and by demonstrating the hypocrisy of those who claim that Group X is outside of respectable society, but whose actions demonstrate that they know better.

    Face it joe outing gays working from within for your own political gain is not cool and far more hypocrytical.

    Gays working in the republican party either open or closeted is good thing and your party fucked it up for a small bump in the polls.

    shame on you.

  • ||

    Most people here seem to believe that same sex marriage is so right that it must come about by any means necessary, including judicial legislation. They also seem to be rather bitter about the fact that the large majority of people in this country do not feel the same way.

    Nice little army of stawmen you built for yourself there...

    Calling your opponents "homophobes" in an attempt to bully them into submission just shows the lack of confidence in the validity of your position.

    ...and they have voices! Do you sometimes hear voices?

  • ||

    This thread is a good illustration of why only psycopaths, masochists, delusional individuals or pod people who have spent their entire life grooming themselves for political office are willing to run for political office.

    Why would any reasonable person get into politics and risk being exposed to the pettily administered personal destruction so many "open minded" "privacy respecting" individuals on this thread are cheering on.

    Here is a question for those who support libertarian policies. Do you think the average libertarian candidate or any candidate who had had a lifestyle that might make them sympathetic to libertarian postions has any chance of surviving in this environment where personal lifestyles trump actual policy position?

    Thanks for doing your part to drive away candidates who might support individual liberty.

  • ||

    Joshua, Are these staffers working on the inside kinda like secret agents or something? Undercover?

    OR, are the an active, willing, part of a party with an undoubted anti-gay agenda?
    ---------------------------------------

    Change in the Republican party will NEVER come form within. A socially conservative party will only change when the majority of people stop voting for them because their views are untenable in the publi opinion of the day. That's why it's so hard to find a racist politician these days, as opposed to the many racist social conservatives back in the days when racism was a more acceptable part of the larger society.

    I therefore REJECT your claim that closeted gay republicans are somehow a good thing for the gay cause. THe NON-gay republicans listending to public opinoins will be the only cause of eventual change in the GOP

  • Jennifer||

    Why would any reasonable person get into politics and risk being exposed to the pettily administered personal destruction so many "open minded" "privacy respecting" individuals on this thread are cheering on.

    No, the question is "why would any reasonable person join a party which teaches that said person is an evil threat to the republic?"

  • ||

    Jennifer,

    Please point me to the plank in the Republican platform that states that: "said person is an evil threat to the republic"

    Sure some Republicans are homophobes and bigots. So are a lot of Democrats.
    Try hanging out with a group of blue-collar union factory workers bitching about the niggers getting promoted ahead of them because of affirmative action, rich bosses sending their jobs to chinks.

    Wasn't it the Democrats who passed the defense of marriage act? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOMA

    Neither party is clean when it comes to gay rights.

  • Jennifer||

    Please point me to the plank in the Republican platform that states that: "said person is an evil threat to the republic"

    It's the plank that wanted to amend the Constitution to protect Americans from the threat of gays getting married. If you're bad enough to require an actual Constitutional amendment to keep Americans protected from you, it's safe to say you're threatening our fair republic.

    Or maybe the amendment backers merely want people to think you're a threat to the republic, for their own political gain. Either way, if you belong to the group the amendment was designed to restrict, you're a delusional dumbshit if you think the amendment's backers are your friends.

    Neither party is clean when it comes to gay rights.

    This is true. Nonetheless, the Republicans are dirtier.

  • ||

    Here is a question for those who support libertarian policies. Do you think the average libertarian candidate or any candidate who had had a lifestyle that might make them sympathetic to libertarian postions has any chance of surviving in this environment where personal lifestyles trump actual policy position?

    We're talking about reaching voters for whom personal lifestyle choices are policy positions.

  • ||

    "These are actual people's lives we are talking about..."

    It's people's lives we're talking about when they can't visit their spouse in the hospital because his homophobic parents are considered "next of kin."

    It's people's lives we're talking about when mothers are denied custody and forbidden from seeing their children.

    It's people's lives we're talking about when the police can kick in your door and jail you for having sex.

    You think this is about a bump in the polls for one party before an election, joshua? Screw you, you heartless prick.

  • ||

    Change in the Republican party will NEVER come form within. A socially conservative party will only change when the majority of people stop voting for them because their views are untenable in the publi opinion of the day.

    maybe you are right maybe you are not...but tell how does outing closet gays in the republican party help anyone exept for a little bump for dems in the polls?

    They fucked up peoples lives becosue they were gay and that sucks in this libertarian's book.

  • ||

    It's people's lives we're talking about when they can't visit their spouse in the hospital because his homophobic parents are considered "next of kin."

    It's people's lives we're talking about when mothers are denied custody and forbidden from seeing their children.

    It's people's lives we're talking about when the police can kick in your door and jail you for having sex.

    You think this is about a bump in the polls for one party before an election, joshua? Screw you, you heartless prick.

    "look everyone see how bad these guys are" says joe.."so now it is ok for us dems to fuck up there lives as well"...pathetic joe.

  • ||

    I guess in joe's world it is OK for Hillary to earn her wings as a goldwater girl but any Bush fag deserves to get burned at the stake.

    Speaking of Goldwater wasn't Bill Moyer working for Johnson when he ran around trying to out gays working on Goldwaters staff...I think I see a trend here.

  • ||

    I just think its great to see Reason giving a hat tip to Mother Jones... wow...

    ;)

  • The Truly Definite Dan T.||

    Joshua, I don't know if you'te deliberately mischaracterizing Joe's argument or if you simply have poor reading-comprehension skills, but Joe's point is that the party itself is demonizing gays, so any gay person working for the Republicans is basically working toward his own demonization. And the issue is one of exposing hypocrisy, not ruining gay people's lives.

    If the GOP would drop its anti-gay hysteria, there's be no point in outing gay GOPers since there's be no hypocrisy to expose.

  • Jennifer||

    Shitfire. Always forget to change my name after joke postings, Shit, damn, hell.

  • ||

    "Nice little army of stawmen you built for yourself there..." - Ken Shultz

    What strawmen? Where? The Massachusetts Supreme Court ordered the legislature to change MA law or they would change the law themselves. I don't see much objection to the MA Court's actions on your side of the argument. In fact, at least one poster on this thread has said that is what the courts should do. So, again I ask, how is this a strawman?

    I did not mean to imply that you personally called anyone a "homophobe" on this thread. I was objecting to the normal table-pounding by Sanchez on this issue in his entry that started this thread.

  • ||

    joe,

    A desire to engage in homosexual acts and race are in no way, shape, or form similar conditions and therefore do not have treated in same fashion. Don't bother with such foolish analogies.

    "Bigot: One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain."
    Ambrose Bierce

  • ||

    "If the people of the state don't like the way their constitution is written, they have the power to amend it to their liking."

    I doubt that the people who wrote and approved the MA constitution had any notion at the time that their Supreme Court would interpret it the way that the court did.

    "Opposing rights for gay people is not the same thing as opposing gay rights?" - Jennifer

    A right that does not exist, has never existed, and only very recently has anyone even posited that such a right existed. Otherwise, what other rights that gay people have do Republicans want to take away on the basis that they are gay?

  • ||

    joshua is so concerned about gay people that he calls them fags.

    Up yours. It's fun watching you bigots get steamrollered by history.

  • ||

    Joshua: Outing them helps because then they stop stirring public opinion with gay-baiting and gay-bashing.

    MJ:There's a difference between rights that have only recently come into existence and rights that have only recently been *recognized*. If we go with your reasoning, women rights did not exist until the 18th century.

    Further, pointing to a lack of debate on gay rights before recent times is only pointing to how supressed gay people were. WHo in his right mind would have campaigned for gay marriage in 1950, no matter how much they believed it to be right? After the laughter cleared, you'd bee booted out of the legislature.

  • ||

    And another thing MJ.

    You say race and orientation aren't comparable?

    Fine, lets do Race and religion. following a religion is a choice, right? WHy is it such a repsected and protected choice?

    Saying gays aren't eligible for protection because they *choose* to be gay, is not a logical argument.

  • ||

    Up yours. It's fun watching you bigots get steamrollered by history.

    Last I checked I support the party and political thought that strongly supports gay marriages not sporatic support of civil unions.

    As far as i can tell republicans hate open gays while the dems hate closeted gays....not much of a differance in my book

    Joshua, I don't know if you'te deliberately mischaracterizing Joe's argument or if you simply have poor reading-comprehension skills

    My problem is not with his arguement my problem is with his blinders he holds for a party which is actively outing gays for political gain.

    But I love his weak dem play book ploys...critisise them on substance and all they can do is call you a bigot....again joe pathetic.

    If the GOP would drop its anti-gay hysteria, there's be no point in outing gay GOPers since there's be no hypocrisy to expose.

    wow look your a genious there are people who support part of the republican cannon yet regect other parts of it...hey how about I point out that the the enviornmental left is at complete odds with the the equity left...oh but wait when I do that I realize that peoples lives won't be ruined when i do that...reps are made up of economic libertarians and social conservatives there is plenty of room to critisize without outing gays to thier ruin...speaking of which gee i wonder what camp those gays in the republican party belong to?? I bet they are the economic libertarians. But yeah i forgot i shouldn't defend my libertarian counterparts or defend thier right to privacy becouse that would make me a bigot

    The only hypocracy the dems expose when the out gey reps is thier own willingness to fuck over people and thier own proported ideals for political gain. Liberals my ass, only statist leftist shits as far as I can see.

  • ||

    "There's a difference between rights that have only recently come into existence and rights that have only recently been *recognized*."

    Recognized by...whom? Under what authority? By light of what reasoning?

    For what I have seen the arguments for legalizing same sex marriage are weak, specious, and unconvincing. They depend on making equivalencies between relationships that have very different consequences for the individuals involved and society as whole based on an absurd cosmic definition of equality. Just because a few people have proclaimed a right does not mean everyone else has to embrace their logic.

    When people disagree with that definition, we get foot stomping temper tantrums from gay marriage supporters casually throwing around terms like "bigot" and "homophobe" in an attempt to scare their opponents into submission.

  • ||

    "My problem is not with his arguement my problem is with his blinders he holds for a party which is actively outing gays for political gain."

    As I explained before, political gain and public discussion are how our society moves forward. You clearly look at this purely through partisan blinders, joshua, but I'm thinking about all the people who are now seeing gay professionals, and the anti-gay politics of the Republican party, in a whole new light.

    "But I love his weak dem play book ploys...critisise them on substance and all they can do is call you a bigot"

    That must be why you've studiously ignored every substantive point I've raised - because of my inability to discuss the issue substantively.

  • ||

    "The only hypocracy the dems expose when the out gey reps is thier own willingness to fuck over people and thier own proported ideals for political gain."

    You mean they actually put ideas and principles - the advance of gay equality and the refutation of anti-gay politics - ahead of giving people a break based on their membership in a group?

    Those BASTARDS! I suppose if they weren't such hypocrites, they'd celebrate gay people who contribute to the demonization of gay people.

    Supporting gay rights doesn't mean going easy on individual gay people when there's a poltical fight, and a gay person is on the other side. It means fighting the political fights that are going to advance gay people's rights, regardless of the demographic characteristics of the people working to deny those rights.

  • ||

    "I doubt that the people who wrote and approved the MA constitution had any notion at the time that their Supreme Court would interpret it the way that the court did." - MJ

    No shit sherlock, that's why it can be amended. They probably didn't anticipate women voting or men going to the moon either. The majority of people in MA are clearly OK with it or I'm sure the Republican/Mormon/Prez Candidate governor would have pushed through an amendment to ban it if it was politically possible. What happened to states rights? It's not taking anything away from you, so why are you so worked up over it?

  • ||

    so joe outing thourou as a libertarian to his co-workers which could lead to his dismissal is fair game in your book?

    Anyway it was fun beating the crap out of you over your bankrupt political ideology.

  • ||

    Masshole,

    If memory serves, people in MA are trying to get their constitution amended, but the process takes years. Also, I seem to recall gay marriage supporters trying to get the attempt at amending declared unconstitutional and invalid.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement