Mitt Romney

A Gay Republican Speaks Out

After the ouster of Richard Grennell, a gay Republican decides not to vote in the coming election.

|

The general-election campaign has hardly even started, but it already has produced what likely will go down as the most shameful moment of the 2012 presidential race. That moment occurred when Richard Grennell, an openly gay adviser to Mitt Romney, resigned from the campaign.

Grenell was the first openly gay adviser to a de facto GOP presidential nominee. He was essentially hounded out by vocal anti-gay elements in the conservative movement. Those include in particular the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer, who among other lovely things has likened homosexuals to Nazis. But Fischer was hardly alone; National Review's Matthew Franck and others also went after Grenell. And while the Romney team did not want Grenell to leave – by all accounts, it pleaded with him to stay – neither did it denounce his critics or condemn their bigotry.

The issue has been somewhat muddled because Grenell is a prickly personality, which has raised questions as to whether attacks on his homosexuality were a self-serving excuse for his departure. Grenell has a "confrontational style," according to The Washington Post, and is sometimes not nice to reporters.  Neither of these traits is exactly rare in Washington (see, e.g.: Emanuel, Rahm et al.).

Oh, but Grenell said snippy things about women, such as suggesting that Rachel Maddow looks like Justin Bieber and asking whether Callista Gingrich's hair "snaps on." These are not nice things to say and would have been better left unsaid. But as the recent contretemps over, e.g., Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke demonstrate, conservative chivalry has let pass far nastier commentary about fair maidens.

No, the trouble is that too many in the GOP and the conservative rank and file still harbor an ugly animosity toward gays and lesbians. A Republican today is considered liberal if he is merely tolerant toward homosexuality – and tolerance, it is worth noting, is an attitude of putting up with something unpleasant. It is not a brotherly embrace.

Not all conservatives share this attitude. Writing in Commentary, John Podhoretz condemned Franck's attacks on Grenell as "preposterous," disingenuous and rooted in anti-gay sentiment. Former ambassador John Bolton, whose "conservative bona fides are irreproachable," says Podhoretz, has been called among Grenell's "strongest supporters."

Yet these are rare voices in a party that has been on the wrong side of too many civil-rights struggles. It is on the wrong side of this one as well. That is a moral failing and the primary offense. But it is also a gross strategic blunder by a party that today seems bent on driving away one natural constituency after another, from Latino immigrants to suburban soccer moms. There are more gay conservatives than some people realize – and they are having a hard time supporting the party they would prefer to call home.

A certain gay Republican acquaintance of mine has written eloquently and at length on this subject. He wanted his words to appear in the Richmond Times-Dispatch with his name and his picture beside them. Unfortunately, although he is out of the closet, he has been forced to reconsider – not because of the Grenell incident, but for entirely unrelated reasons. Nevertheless, he says the Grenell affair has left him "furious," and he has agreed to let his words be excerpted here, with his name withheld. They appear immediately below. 

*** 

"During the past couple of years I have come to terms with two unavoidable facts. First, I'm gay. And second, I can't — I won't — hide it. …

"I had not planned on telling anyone but [close]  friends, because it really isn't anyone's business. But I have since changed my mind about that…

Why? Because I'm not ashamed of this. I didn't decide to "become" gay, and, truthfully, it's not something I would wish for anyone else. Yet it is who I am, and I refuse to reject it…

Being gay is not "bad." Being gay does not make me evil. Being gay does not mean I am doing anything wrong. I am just being the man that God made. And the totality of that man is not wrapped up in the fact that I am gay. My romantic relationships are a part of me, but they do not define my entire being.

One of the first friends I told sat silently for a few seconds then asked, "Will you still like Hokie football?" I don't know if he was joking or not, but he did sound genuinely concerned. I assured him I would – that is as much a part of me as is my sexuality, if not more.

But when you boil this down, I'm still the same man I was before I accepted my homosexuality. I'm still just a guy who happens to like and do stereotypically guy things. I still love football (GO HOKIES!). I still love cars. I still look natural in my cowboy boots (I own four pairs). I still lift weights for the sheer joy of it. But I just also happen to date dudes.

And I still support political candidates who firmly believe in fiscal and social responsibility – i.e. conservatives. That has been the question I have received most frequently from even close friends when I have told them I am gay: "You're not going to vote the same way, are you?"

Of course I am. I realized I was gay; I didn't have my brain rewired. I continue to believe in a limited role for government. I continue to believe strongly in fiscal discipline. I continue to believe in federalism. I still continue to believe our national security policy should be both extremely muscular and extraordinarily humble. I continue to support the right to keep and bear arms.

None of that changes because of the people I can now admit I love.

And why should it? Changing my political ideology would be far more wrenching for me than asking a guy out on a date. I have spent a lot of years thinking about what I believe philosophically and why I believe it. I am not going to change that under any circumstances.

But I am not naïve. It will take some time for my ideological compatriots to get used to sharing the political spectrum with a guy who sometimes has to check with his boyfriend to see where their anniversary dinner is.

I am not going to abandon the people who have the same political beliefs that I do, and I hope they don't abandon me. I want to show them that people who have the romantic attraction I do aren't these strange terrible beings who have an agenda to destroy the country. I do not.

I, like them, just want to see the federal government stop spending so damn much money – and that view has nothing to do with being straight or gay.

[A close friend] is not sure being public about this is a good thing. He's right. I don't need to invite any attention into this area of my life. It could hurt with future job prospects. It will end any political viability I had. It might make adoption extraordinarily difficult.

Time will tell about the wisdom of making this declaration. Regardless, I am making it.

There is one specific reason, though, that I wanted to say something about this publicly. I can't get the suicides of Tyler Clementi and Jamey Rodemeyer out of my mind. Both were gay teens whose suicides seem to have stemmed from bullying rooted in their sexuality.

There is nothing I alone can do to stop young people like Clementi and Rodemeyer from becoming desperate because of their sexuality. But I can hold my head up aggressively and honestly in hopes that will make such a demeanor the norm. And I can show their bullies not everyone will cower.

In other words, if I can be a small part of the solution, sign me up.

It's ok. It gets better – especially after you gather the courage to tell your closest guy friends, "Dudes, I'm gay."

***

In the wake of the Grenell affair, the friend writes, "I'm starting to wonder if – despite that fact that I agree with the [Republican] party on most issues, including being strongly pro-life –  the GOP just doesn't want people like me." He will not vote for Romney now. But "I won't vote for Obama, so for the first time in my life I won't vote for president. There is no one for me to support."

A. Barton Hinkle is a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch, where this article originally appeared.

NEXT: The Times When You Saw Only One Set Of Footprints Are When POTUS Carried You

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.

  1. it already has produced what likely will go down as the most shameful moment of the 2012 presidential race

    Optimistic, aren’t we?

    1. Yeah, I thought so. Frankly, I thought the determined marginalizing of Ron Paul by the media beat this.

      1. While I agree that the coverage could have been better this time, it was still dramatically better than the coverage in 2008. (See, e.g., the infamous CNN report mentioning that Romney won the Nevada primary and that McCain came in third, while omitting any reference to who finished second).

    2. Seriously. To give just one example, I think Obama’s speech about SCOTUS knowing their place after the DemCare oral arguments was way more shameful.

  2. Oh, but Grenell said snippy things about women, such as suggesting that Rachel Maddow looks like Justin Bieber

    Has he also said that the sky is blue and that the sun rises in the East?

    1. I always thought Maddow looked much like Elvis Costello in drag …

      1. No! Will Riker!

        1. Please, let’s not insult Johnathan Frakes.

    2. Bieber is way more feminine.

    3. Jerry Seinfeld with his hair slightly different.

  3. He was essentially hounded out by vocal anti-gay elements in the conservative movement

    Oh, okay; and, the usual suspects on the left – the same ones that target conservative blacks or hispanics – has nothing to do with this. Give me a break. And using the words of an individual who may or may not be real to advance a hypothesis is bullshit.

    Ironic thing is that the only person who didn’t seem to care about Grenell’s orientation was Romney himself.

    1. I don’t think ROMNIAC’s programmers had managed to debug the code on his opinion before Grenell left.

  4. Grenell has a “confrontational style,” according to The Washington Post, and is sometimes not nice to reporters. Neither of these traits is exactly rare in Washington (see, e.g.: Emanuel, Rahm et al.).

    This might mean something if there wasn’t a raging double standard (Dems/libs v. Repubs/cons, not gays v. straights).

    Yet these are rare voices in a party that has been on the wrong side of too many civil-rights struggles.

    If by “wrong side”, you mean opposed to the racial grievance/preference state, then you have a point.

    I suppose “wrong side” could mean “shafted by a media only too happy to publish lefty/Dem talking points that anyone opposed to the racial grievance/preference state is a bigot”.

    But I don’t recall any Republican in a generation or more actually supporting actual discrimination against minorities based on race, at least. To the extent Republican stick their head up above the parapet at all on race relations, its usually to make a timid case for equality before the law. Is that the wrong side?

    1. Ultimately the purpose of the “preference state” to which you refer is to ensure that the rules apply to everyone. I would love to believe that the “timid cases” made weren’t thinly veiled calls for a return to Jim Crow – and I mostly do, BTW – but I’m not entirely convinced. When you have the wife of a NC State Senator insisting that the gays are undermining the Caucasian race and that the US was founded for white people I beg leave to doubt their sincerity.

      1. Their sincerity or her sincerity?

      2. “Ultimately the purpose of the “preference state” to which you refer is to ensure that the rules apply to everyone.”

        College admissions and Military Service Academies excepted, of course.

      3. Susan, you will note that the comment was about civil rights struggles (which I take to be referring mostly to race), and my reply was addressing racial issues.

        I’m not arguing that there are anti-gay bigot Republicans. I am mostly questioning the notion that “colorblind” Republicans are on the wrong side of the issue of the (racial) civil rights “struggle”.

      4. Or you could, you know, quit race hustling like Jackson and Sharpton and realize that if some moron wants to discriminate against people that don’t look like him then that’s perfectly okay. More business for me since I don’t care what you look like or who you fuck.

        The only people who shouldn’t discriminate are the government and they are the motherfuckers that institutionalized it in the first place.

      5. Ultimately the purpose of the “preference state” to which you refer is to ensure that the rules apply to everyone.

        Ends justifying means. always immoral.

      6. Actually, by definition, the purpose of the “preference state” is not to ensure that “the rules” du jour apply to everyone. It’s to institutionalize preferences for real or perceived “minorities”, categorized by whatever factor is of most immediate convenience, be it race, gender, sexual orientation, height, weight…

  5. I’ve come to believe that the anti-gay faction in the Republican party is a small one, but highly vocal. Most GOPers I know don’t give a shit about this stuff.

    The problem is, the social cons wield influence beyond their numbers because they show up and man the phone banks etc.

    1. You know who else was small but highly vocal?

        1. Napoleon wasn’t highly vocal.

          1. Or that small (for his time).

      1. Prince?

      2. Tiny Tim?

      3. Could it be…Satan?!

      4. Justin Bieber?

      5. Wait. I know. It was Tojo wasn’t it?

  6. Why don’t fags vot LP?
    It’s the only pro-sodomy party.

    1. Some do. We have several “fags” here who are libertarian. But I doubt they do it for “pro-sodomy” reasons, and rather do it for pro-liberty reasons. Just like the rest of you.

      1. But there is a very legitimate question about why more gays dont vote LP.

        I think it comes down to special pleading. We wont treat gays any different than straights. Period. And lots of them dont like that.

        Some do, obviously.

        Same applies for other minorities too.

        1. I think you’d be surprised how many homos would like to be treated no differently than straights, rob. Unfortunately, they aren’t.

          1. Voting D instead of L wont get them that.

            1. I will make it more clear. NO gay who votes D falls into that group.

              So I might be surprised, but Im not sure where you are going to find them.

            2. That could be said about many, many people, rob, not just homos.

              1. Yep. I orginally had a bit saying “same for other minorities”.

          2. I would like to believe this, however if the African American community is any example then special treatment is coveted over equal treatment. I do believe there is a significant faction within the gay community that demand special treatment, are they the majority? I hope not.

            1. OTOH, Team Red hasn’t been very censorious of its racist elements, which kinda makes it uncomfortable for black americans.

              And all the pandering to socons* doesn’t make gays feel very welcome in the GOP either.

              *(One of the real ironies is that public opinion surveys have shown blacks to be much more socially conservative than whites. The GOP socon crowd, if they weren’t so F*****G racist, would probably find a good fit with american blacks.)

              1. Team Blue had a fella in their ranks who was a member of the KKK and used the word “nigger” several times in the 2000’s. Pretty sure they’re the only part who did.

                Also, have you any reference to FUCKING racism among the socon faction of the GOP? The schism among black and white socons might have as much to do with the blacks who vote 90+% Team Blue as the whites who vote 60-ish% Team Red. But shit, that sort of ruins our narrative. Team Red r teh racist man!

          3. Honestly, I think it is that Libertarians are generally against the idea of legally “protected classes”. So, for example, we generally believe that a workplace will discriminate will not attract the best talent or promote it, and therefore lose it to a more open minded business. We would also support a bar saying, “Straights only” (We would also be cool with a bar saying “Gays only” but that is oft ignored).

            Furthermore, many if not most libertarians are against the idea of hate crimes, which many minority groups, especially gays, really seem to want to have (look at all the effort to pass the Mathew Shepard Robert Bryd Act, which is a weird name because Mathew Shepherd’s killers are serving life and Robert Bryd’s were put to death, but whatever). Especially with all this stuff about the bullying of gay teens in the media, now more than ever the idea of hate crimes is really being pushed.

            So, while not wanting “special” treatment per say, I think many want a government which actively promotes “tolerance” and “correct thinking”.

            1. Uh, I can’t believe I have to say this here, but homos are not a monolithic block. They are composed of individuals, some of whom who may want what you say, and others who just want to be left alone.

              It bothers me that I have to point to collectivism coming from libertarians.

              1. Fair point, Epi, and it was too broadly worded. I am just saying that when pressed for why they affiliate with the Democratic Party, on most of the blogs I have seen, the above was/were given as the reasons.

                Tonio, god bless him, is not like this. Also, Tonio, if you are around: Do you get massive shit for being a gay libertarian, from either libertarians or the gay community?

                1. Despite not being Tonio, may I answer? I get no shit at all from libertarians for being a gay libertarian. The reaction from the gay community is all over the place: The politically correct crowd thinks I’m evil incarnate, especially when I point out the glaring contradictions in political correctness; gay Republicans (and I seem to attract them) think I’m naive for not seeing the self-evident truth of Republicanism, and everyone else treats it as a non-issue.

                  1. I apparently wasn’t allowed to put a diaeresis over the i in naive.

                    1. Diaeresis? Get that gay shit out of here.

                  2. , and everyone else treats it as a non-issue.

                    That’s because you being gay isn’t an issue.

                    Seriously, why do people even give half a fuck anymore if someone else prefers their own gender?

                    Were I born a woman I’d definitely be gay.

                  3. Somehow, Doctor, I never realized you were gay. Speaking of… why haven’t they had a gay Doctor Who yet? I mean, that’d be kind of fun.

                    Of course, then they would just be copying Inspector Spacetime, but still.

              2. Uh, I can’t believe I have to say this here, but homos are not a monolithic block.

                Hahahaha. Monolith. Good usage.

              3. That’s classification, not “collectivism”.

                It’s correct to say there are evangelical pastors who vote Democrat and that there are blacks who vote Republican as well, but I’ve never seen you feel compelled to point it out when we fall back on the assumption that most evangelicals vote Republican and most blacks vote Democrat, because it’s a simple reflection of reality. Same goes.

            2. The problem, as I see it, is that Libertarians generally align themselves with social conservatives as constituents of the Republican Party. Libertarians are against things like protected classes on principle, while social conservatives are against them because they’re small minded bigots. The politically astute can differentiate the two groups, however the vast majority of people only see one homogeneous group. Thus, any nuance is overlooked, and many gays/blacks/liberals/moderates/etc simply see the vocal “haters” on Team Red. That’s why people think Rand Paul is a racist – You can’t be a Republican and seriously question the civil rights movement on principle, while still courting the votes of those who question civil rights viscerally.

            3. You express yourself real good goldy, and you got a real cleaver name. Keep talking.

        2. So the libertarian movement is strongly in favor of equal marriage rights, correct? You know, treated equally…

          1. From what I generally see around here, yes. People are in favor of removing the government from marriage for everyone, gay or straight.

            1. From what I generally see around here, yes. People are in favor of removing the government from marriage for everyone, gay or straight.

              No Sparky, you completely misunderstand T o n y he wants government sanctified gay marriage not gay marriage.

              Huge difference!

          2. Nope, the official position is the status quo. State-sanctioned marriage is an affront to libertarians. Obviously, you don’t want to expand a statist policy even more. On the other hand, nobody really cares about getting the government out of the marriage business. Certainly, not when straight libertarians marry. So, it’s the status quo, and congratulating themselves for their principled position.

            1. Try reading one of the gay marriage threads sometime. We are in no way monolithic about our stances. The one thing almost all of agree on is that there should be a separation of marriage and state. Some of us don’t see that ever happening and call for equal treatment before the law. Some of us say fuck that, we should just fight to get the government out completely period.

          3. I mean, I think we would eliminate “marriage” as a legal construct, and just fold that stuff in under freedom of contract

          4. As far as possible, the govt should not discriminate on any basis.

          5. Yes, Tony… by getting rid of marriage licenses.

            But you’re against that.

        3. It’s a conundrum of individualism, isn’t it? Can you stand for individualism if you include the right of individuals to suppress the individuality of others?

          1. Indvidually, yes. By collective force or majority rule the suppression of individuality? No.

          2. Is this supposed to be one of those really deep questions? Because it isn’t.

          3. The government cannot be permitted to discriminate because it has the ability to use force to achieve its discriminatory ends. That is, it can force others to engage in discrimination even if they wouldn’t choose to do so themselves. See, e.g. Jim Crow.

            Individuals should legally be permitted to discriminate, because they should have freedom of conscience and freedom of association. I cannot force others to discriminate, but I have the right to be an asshole to people and they have a right to boycott my business and talk shit about me on facebook and make it a bad business decision to discriminate.

            1. But without the government, how could we ever force Chick-fil-A to hire more gays?

              1. I’ve never worked in a chik-fil-a but I can authoritatively state that they’re the only drive-through in my area where I’ve never once had an issue with language comprehension in my order taker. Is their evidence that they don’t hire gays as a policy? I’m not sure it would affect their ability to understand my order one way or another.

          4. It’s not a conundrum. It’s having the intellectual capacity to differentiate between “Individuals” and “The Government.” They are different words, and they mean different things.

    2. Things that many gays care about that Libertarians won’t give them:

      (1) Hate-crime laws
      (2) Government funding for HIV/AIDS research
      (3) Employment discrimination laws

      1. I.e., bigger & more intrusive government.

      2. “Many” = some. Just like the general population. So how are homos different than the regular population?

        1. You know how it goes Epi. The subsection of any group that makes the most noise becomes “all” or “most” to just about everyone outside of that group. I’ve been noticing a lot more lately that Libertarians are just as likely to fall into that line of thinking as any other group.

        2. So how are homos different than the regular population?

          By their homo-ness, duh!

          1. It is not necessarily that gays are different in that respect, but the odd fact is that many are not likely to associate with the one party/group that is most likely to be accepting of them as people (i.e. libertarians). Many vote Democratic because they like some of the big government Democratic ideas (hate crime laws, employment discrimination, etc.), even though some of the biggest Democrat strongholds (blacks, unions, etc.) are hostile to their lifestyle.

            So I guess you are right – many gays choose government goodies over actual acceptance, just like the feminists and many other Democratic groups.

      3. Things that “many” straight people care about that Libertarians won’t give them:

        1) Minimum wage
        2) Universal health care
        3) Federally-subsidized mortgages and college loans

        Libertarians are libertarians because they’re libertarians, not because they’re straight or white or rich or poor. It has nothing to do with anything other than a belief in the value of liberty, freedom, and individualism.

  7. ‘I won’t vote for Obama, so for the first time in my life I won’t vote for president. There is no one for me to support.’

    I don’t have a problem with people not voting, not at all, but I hope your friend realizes there are often more than two names on a ballot.

    1. That’s the same as not voting. In the upcoming election, at least.

      Not voting or voting 3rd party is a half-vote against the status quo. Why not make it a full vote? Do people really think Romney is the same as Obama? Do non-GOP conservatives really believe Obama deserves another four years or there won’t be any long-lasting consequences of a full-blown European-style welfare state? Ronmey might still take us there, but it won’t be nearly as fast.

      No, it’s not a great choice, but it’s still a fucking goddam choice! And making them is part of being an adult, even though the Obama Youth are increasingly diluting the impact.

      1. Bull fucking shit.

        Fuck off two party slaver.

        A vote for a third party is a vote for a third party. It says “I prefer this guy to be president from the list I was presented”. Nothing more, nothing less.

        Everyone starts with zero votes (except in Chicago).

        1. True. The logic of “third party votes are wasted” applies across the board to all votes.

          Why are third party votes “wasted”? Generally, because they weren’t votes for the winner. That means everybody who didn’t vote for the winner wasted their vote, no?

          Sometimes, though, you hear that its wasted because the only real contest was between the two major party candidates, so if you aren’t going to vote for one of them, you might as well not vote at all. This implies, though, that votes only matter if they affect the outcome of the major party race. Which no vote does, so I guess they are all wasted.

          No, robc got it. Votes are a statement of preference. All votes count equally. Voting for Barr was no more wasted than voting for McCain, or even voting for Obama.

          1. I’ve said this previously, but it bears repeating. Voting for someone who will actively work to implement bad policies is wasting your vote.

            1. That’s a nice black and white quip. I take it you don’t believe in degrees of bad policies?

          2. A vote that isn’t for a major party might not be a “waste” in terms of your personal fulfillment, but it’s a total and complete waste in terms of the outcome of the election. Voting for a particular party when you live in a district/county/state that votes overwhelmingly for the opposing party is also a total and complete waste. It doesn’t even have the effect of drawing attention to the issues that are important to you, because your candidate has no influence and neither do you. So it’s not even effective in the public-self-immolation-suicide sense. It’s more analogous to going deep into the woods where no one can hear you, shouting about all the reasons you’re killing yourself, and then blowing your brains out where no one will ever see you or find your remains. It’s the reason why libertarians haven’t had any influence on public policy in the history of the American republic.

      2. Fuck you, HitAndRunpblican. And we see the beginning of the stages of HitAndRunpublicanism: first, the condescension for those who won’t vote for Romney “just to beat Obama”.

        FUCK YOU.

        1. Lately I’ve been thinking about throwing in a vote for Obama just to see if he could win and topple the shithouse faster than it currently is.

          1. You are an evil bastard. Look on the bright side. None of this really maters, and we’ll all be dead soon.

        2. Fuck you. I had to WORK today. And prior obligations prevent me from living in front of this blog on most days.

          Fuck, I might as well vote for myself if I think Obama is the same as Romney because no one else has a chance in hell. Save your feel-good vote for an election when there’s NOT an alinskyite in the white house.

      3. Stage 1 sighting! Can we get a Stage 2 Hit&Runpublican in this thread?

        1. It’s not time for anger yet. That comes later.

        2. There’s one over on the ghey thread too. How do people who know anything at all about Team Red get so fucking smarmy about it?

          1. What are you, a child? THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR LIFETIMES

      4. Bullshit.

        Voting for some guy you don’t like because the other guy you hate might win is wasting your vote.

        Besides, in my state, CA, Obama is going to win by a huge margin. Any vote for Romney is therefor ‘wasted’ but enough people voting for Gary Johnson will definitely send a message.

        1. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

          1. and lesser

        2. You wouldn’t need that excuse at the end if you truly felt it was the best use of a vote. Just stay home if you know your side has no chance in hell of winning. Be productive.

      5. You still mad about the Nader votes in 2000, Al?

      6. Do people really think Romney is the same as Obama?

        In pretty much every way that counts, yes. Sure Romneybot may not spend quite as much as Obama, and there may not be quite as much of a disconnect between what Romneybot says and what he ultimately does (IOW not quite as much blatant dishonesty), but at the end of the day the policies of the federal government under a President Romney won’t be much different than they are under Obama.

        1. Even by the logic that reducing increases in spending rates is priority, pretty much every GOP candidate, including Romney, seems to be itching to invade Iran and/or North Korea even more so than Obama.

          Such an action would quickly wipe out any possible savings from whatever marginal government cuts they enact. We never know the future, but one thing is certain: the military-industrial complex must be fed. In the end, Obama may be the slightly more fiscally conservative option thanks to his need to appear comparatively hesitant on foreign policy to his constituency, sad as it is to say.

          1. “Obama may be the slightly more fiscally conservative option”

            Just compare Obama’s total debt to Bush’s. You want more of that??

          2. Yeah, considering how popular Iraq and Afghanistan are today, I’m sure the GOP president, with the approval of a super majority of a divided congress, will go invade Iran or North Korea. Do you seriously believe this shit?

      7. “That’s the same as not voting.”

        In terms of immediate outcome, yes. However, it affects ballot access and similar election rules. It also sends a signal to the two parties where they can potentially pick up disaffected voters.

      8. Fuck off slaver.

      9. That’s the same as not voting.

        Not voting accomplishes nothing. You’ll be ignored. Voting third party at least shows the preference of someone who has the motivation to get off his backside and pull the lever. Politicians notice. This is not to say that vote could not be more effective by using it for someone who actually has a chance of winning, but it’s certainly better than not voting at all.

        1. Better? Obama won’t give a flying fuck if the LP candidate got 5% or 0.5% of the popular vote. You know why? Because he doesn’t have to run again!

          Republicans will notice. But who the hell cares if the number of registered democrats stays the same?

  8. Gay Republican? Isn’t that against the rules?

    1. Not at all, consider the current Speaker of the House.

      1. Openly gay Republican? Isn’t that against the rules?

        1. Thank you, that was my first real laugh of the day.

  9. This is some of the fallout that I see from the kind of image that the Gay Movement (as opposed to gays in general) chooses to project … or allows some members to cause to be projected. Yes, there are always going to be a few real bigots in any political side or faction. But holding Gay Pride events where people are permitted to dress to Shock The Squares just makes it easy for the jerks. I’m not talking about the couples holding hands or kissing; I’m talking about the tacky morons who dress up in bondage themed gear.

    If what you do in your bedrooms is none of my business – and it certainly shouldn’t be – then don’t dress in public in a way that makes it hard for me to not imagine it.

    Believe me, you don’t want to imagine my bedroom acrobatics either; I’m fifty, and homely.

    Any person – I’m looking at YOU Janet Jackson – who publicly displays their pierced nipples isn’t a Brave Crusader For whatever. They’re a tacky arrested-adolescent with poor impulse control.

    I’ve been to Gay Pride events that didn’t raise any hackles. The yearly parade in New Hope PA could be mistaken for the July 4th festivities in Mason City Iowa (which inspired MUSIC MAN). Everybody, Gay and Straight is intent on celebrating their shared community. OK, there are a few Gays in drag. They keep it tasteful.

    1. Yeah, while the Assless Leather Chaps crowd should be allowed to exist and wear them in gay bars, maybe there needs to be a talk in the community of, “Let’s not let these people be our leadoff hitters, okay?”

      1. Or maybe everyone who isn’t gay could take the collective sticks out of their asses and let people be who they want to be. I think it’s tacky for women with large breasts to wear low-cut shirts in the office, it’s very distracting and makes it difficult to maintain eye contact. But I’m sure I’d be almost universally reviled by the male community if I started making a big deal about it.

        1. Fair point, fair point. Although I will say that when I flip through the local alternative (and free) paper and see the Pride day events, it would appear to be a lot of foam parties and such, which makes me think that Gay Pride has gone from, “We’re here and we demand a place in public life!” to “Let’s get drunk, party, and fuck!”

          Which is actually proof that, in America, you have made it. Look at St. Patrick’s Day.

        2. There’s a degree of difference between wearing an outfit more suitable to a cocktail party in the office, and wearing an outfit meant for sex-play on the street. The first is poor judgement. The second is shouting “Look at ME! Look at ME! Look at ME!”.

          Look, it isn’t (for me, anyway) a Gay issue. The Goth twits who wear extreme clothing and exposed piercings strike me as twits, too. Hell, I’ve BEEN such a twit. I wore a cloak for years (SF Fandom geek). But, on the other hand, I wasn’t looking for political influence at the time.

          Maybe it would help if we could just get the old and flabby ones to quit. I’m old (ish) and flabby myself; nobody wants to see me in assless chaps (except maybe my Lady).

          “let people be who they want to be” sounds very reasonable, but if what they are is wearing bedroom gear on the street, then what they are is tacky and in-your-face. Tacky and in-your-face doesn’t win friends, and it only influences people negatively.

          1. I understand where you guys are coming from and for the most part I agree. I think people who dress like that in public should be ridiculed mainly for dressing like that in public. The problem, as I said below, is that that is likely to get you stuck for committing a hate crime for saying something negative about a person in a protected class. If gay wasn’t such a class then the people dressing like this could be laughed at and taunted mercilessly for their choice and possibly think more about it the next time.

            1. Way back when, when the “You can’t dislike me, I’m a protected minority” nonsense started, I coined the phrase “Nothing Impersonal. I just think YOU are a jerk.”

              Caught a few self-important twits off guard. Wouldn’t work now, though.

        3. I revile you for even suggesting it in a forum where it might be seen by the people that are luggin’ around all them tits.

      2. I’ve been to many Gay Pride Parades in Minneapolis. I even pulled a float. But what pissed me off is that there were these guys that were advocating public nudity. They march naked in a wooden barrel. Every once in a awhile they lift up their barrel and expose themselves. And whit that doesn’t bother me personally, there was this one bastard who lifted his barrel while standing about a foot away from a ten-year-old girl who was sitting on the curb. His Johnson is pretty much in this kid’s face. She, naturally, made a face and turned away. Asshole should be in jail.

        1. We should also stop taking 10-year olds to art museums. They might be traumatized by The David’s “dice”.

          1. Because classical statuary made from rock and having some overbearing, flamboyant old man’s cock in your face when you’re 10 years old is totally the same thing.

            1. Hey, art is art.

      3. Pedantic point from an annoyed equine enthusiast – All chaps are assless, if they had asses, they would just be pants.

        1. Pantsless chaps?

        2. THANK YOU.

          I thought I was going to have to be the pedantic one here.

    2. I never understood those people. Do they think gay culture has a stranglehold on BDSM or something? Plenty of straight people are into that but don’t, you know, walk around with our significant others on leashes.

      1. Maybe they’s watched Pulp Fiction a few too many times.

        “Bring out the gimp.”

      2. The prudishness of Americans is really what makes this incredibly tacky. That being said, since being a homosexual puts you in a protected class, anyone who makes fun of you for wearing stupid clothes in public will probably be charged with a hate crime.

      3. Plenty of straight people are into that but don’t, you know, walk around with our significant others on leashes.

        Freudian Slip?

        I’ve found that most straight BDSM people who don’t walk around in Goth getup can be identified fairly easily, usually by the fact that they are very polite and well-dressed (not well enough to stand out immediately, but usually slightly out of place). There’s also usually a passive dominance or submissiveness in their tone and word choice, although one that doesn’t sound the same as, say, an abusive relationship.

        1. Er, not that I’m intimately familiar with the BDSM community.

    3. “(which inspired MUSIC MAN)”

      You just had to bring up musicals, didn’t you?

  10. First, the socons are douchbags. However, he was asked to stay on, but just to lay low until people got bored and moved on. In a perfect world he should have to do no such thing, but this is politics. It’s dirty mean and mighty unclean. He should know this by now. They hurt my feelings so I quit doesn’t seem like someone who can handle a prez race. There may be more to the story though.

    1. This. If you can’t handle people slurring you ancestors, your mother, you appearance, your morals, and your ethics, then Politics is not for you.

    2. If you can’t spell douchebags properly, H&R might not be the best place for you.

  11. Anyone quoting an unnamed source is full of shit.

  12. No one to vote for?!?! Hogwash, VOTE RON PAUL!

    1. I did. Unfortunately, the Republicans in my state somehow convinced themselves that AssJuice would be a better candidate. So, at my next opportunity, I will be voting for Gary Johnson.

  13. Rush 2112!

    1. Don’t stop believing.

  14. “essentially hounded out by vocal anti-gay elements in the conservative movement.”
    Bullshit.

    I read the Franck article, he was concerned about some of the guy’s inflammatory tweeting, but had no problem at all with his sexual orientation. The thrust of the article was abotu him being a potential loose cannon, not him being gay.

  15. Now there is a dude that really knows what time of day it is lol.

    http://www.Privacy-Dudes.tk

  16. Whoa, the totally key gay-republican vote? that’s gotta hurt. Next he’ll start losing the black-republican vote, and he’ll be screwed!

  17. How long would a pro-gun rights, fiscally-conservative, pro-choice Democrat last on Obama’s re-elect team?

  18. He will not vote for Romney now. But “I won’t vote for Obama, so for the first time in my life I won’t vote for president. There is no one for me to support.”

    So our unnamed Gaypublican won’t vote for Romney because one of his aides who happens to be homosexual quit the campaign after Romney supported him and asked him to stay onboard, even though he supports all of the party’s political positions? Sounds reasonable.

    This is outrage looking for a story. The guy was under no obligation to quit. His boss didn’t ask him to quit. His boss asked him to stay despite the potential political consequences (indicating that there more than likely weren’t going to be any political consequences, since if there were, the guy running for office would have unloaded himself of the liability like a cancerous tumor). This has about as much to do with gay rights as the guy who deployed an inflatable escape chute while famously (and fabulously!) quitting his job with an airline. It’s the story of a guy who quit his job. The only outrage is that anybody is pretending to be outraged.

  19. Tell him about Gary Johnson!

  20. Hey, your friend can vote for Gary Johnson. I’ll even buy him a drink.

  21. You friend is also welcome to post his anonymous analysis at BigHomo at http://www.bighomocon.blogspot.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.