Thread: Republican, Gay and Proud

Bush's GOP chairman comes out of the closet. Can he change the gay marriage debate?

Ken Mehlman is gay. Lots of people thought so, but nobody knew for sure until Mehlman began telling friends and family in recent months. Now it's public: Mehlman has given a full interview to the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder.

This is a big deal. Mehlman managed President Bush's re-election campaign in 2004 and chaired the Republican National Committee from 2005 to 2007. Many influential Republicans have worked with him and respect him. He makes it harder for them to think of homosexuality as a behavior. They now know somebody who is gay. Or, as Donald Rumsfeld might have put it, they now know that they know somebody who is gay.

That's important, because if you look at polls over the last 30 or 40 years, two factors have been driving public opinion in the direction of gay rights. One is whether you know someone who's openly gay. More and more people do, and those who do are more tolerant of homosexuality. The other factor is whether you think it's involuntary. This belief, too, has increased over time, and tolerance has increased with it. It's pretty hard to imagine that the guy who ran the GOP during its recent campaigns against gay marriage would come out as homosexual unless he felt he had no choice. This is simply who he is.

Look at the early reactions from his colleagues. The party's current chairman, Michael Steele, says, "I am happy for Ken. His announcement, often a very difficult decision which is only compounded when done on the public stage, reaffirms for me why we are friends and why I respect him personally and professionally." Very difficult decision means, among other things, that Mehlman had no choice. And because the friendship remains, Steele now has another gay friend to think about when he hears a pitch to score political points at the expense of gays.

Bush's GOP chairman comes out of the closet. Can he change the gay marriage debate? - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine


I'm not about scoring some cheap, homophobic points here- I say good on Ken Mehlman for coming out. But the party that represents his political leanings, and that he has served in a senior capacity, is also the party that is the most regressive when it comes down to such things as gay rights, gay marriage, and the 'don't ask don't tell' military policy. Perhaps when it comes down to it, the GOP is catering to it's substantial and noisy Religious Right voter base- but I am sure that, in private, many if not most Republicans would prefer that the GOP catch up to the times in this regard.

Not every gay is a flamboyant left wing Frisco type. Most are not. Ones sexual choice does not determine your politics, or necessarily career choice. Well, except maybe Thespians . Barney Frank is an openly gay Democrat Congressman, and the first openly gay congressman, Gerry Studds, was also Democrat. Not so easy for a Republican to come out though- and there is at least one gay Republican in the Houses of Congress, almost certainly more.

Doubtless over the objections of the Religious Right and homophobes, I think it is past time for the GOP to move beyond it's regressive gay policies. Might brush some cobwebs off it's 'old, fat southern white guy' image too. What do you think?

Originally Posted by sabang

Mehlman managed President Bush's re-election campaign in 2004

there is a technical mistake here, Bush wasn't re-elected in 2004, he cheated again

not sure having more gays in the republican ranks is going to change their hate speech. Eventually they will simply target another minority as their message du jour.

Originally Posted by Norton

Choosing to support or not folks running for office based on their sexual preference, religion or ethnicity rather than the ability to best run the nation is the norm in US politics.

The norm? Oh, ya, since the dems got into office, I would agree with you. They all drink the same kool-aid.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Oh, ya, since the dems got into office, I would agree with you.

Nonsense and you know it. The right and the left have always politicized a particular special interest issue to garner votes.

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Oh, ya, since the dems got into office, I would agree with you.

Nonsense and you know it. The right and the left have always politicized a particular special interest issue to garner votes.

*pouting* OK, the GOP's special interest is helping everyone make lots of money by staying the fek outta the markets.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

the GOP's special interest is helping everyone make lots of money by staying the fek outta the markets.

Arguable but won't go there. Being a registered republican, it concerns me greatly when the party politiczes issues having nothing to do with voting for the person best qualified for an elected position. Seems the only guy making any sort of sense these days is Ron Paul. Unfortunately, some of his ideas are OTT.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Originally Posted by Norton

Choosing to support or not folks running for office based on their sexual preference, religion or ethnicity rather than the ability to best run the nation is the norm in US politics.

The norm? Oh, ya, since the dems got into office, I would agree with you. They all drink the same kool-aid.

Actually Jet, the Kool-Aid is one and the same flavour - it's just that the colours have been designed and tainted to appear that there is a varitable difference. There isn't much....if at all.

^ Just get the govt outta the markets and let the real people do biz. Even Cameron knows better than obama who just wants to keep spending and has that moron Krugman egging him on to SPEND more. What did that jerk win a Nobel for? How to destroy a country's economy in one easy step?

An advantage of coming out is that he can\'t be railroaded or blackmailed. The disadvantage is that he will not be in office long

Originally Posted by Indian Jones

An advantage of coming out is that he can\'t be railroaded or blackmailed. The disadvantage is that he will not be in office long

He wasn't elected. Please stay informed to make credible posts.

Please re-read my post. I didn\\\'t say that he was elected. My statement refers to a potential

You give another \'red\' repo for my post? What are your criteria for this and why do you have this seeming vendetta against me, Jet?

Sadly, being Republican and gay is electoral poison- at least if your ambition is for high office. Lindsey Graham, who is gay or bisexual, was recently blackmailed by the Tea Party for this very reason- fall into line with their anti-Obama position, or be Outed- and then ousted at the next election. He fell into line. Pretty sad really.

Being gay, or 'questionable' does however have certain potential benefits if you are not shooting for the very top- and why any well balanced person would want to go to the top in the sleazepit of US politics evades me. Welcome to the phenomenon of the Republican Houseboy.


Here’s the question: why does the Republican Party recruit and promote so many closeted gay men?

I came to the question when I was watching Lindsey Graham (whose sexual orientation has been the subject of rumors for a long time, to the point where it’s almost an open secret) on the Sunday morning talk shows yet again. There he was, spewing more GOP talking points, as he’s so frequently called upon to do.

Most of the other Sunday morning regulars have ambitions for higher office. McCain and Biden come to mind. So why is Graham deputized to work the circuit, week after week, year after year?

Because he’s safe.

He’s safe. He has no ambition for higher office. Don’t you find that curious? Why does no one ever float his name as a potential candidate, given the high profile he’s cultivated over the years?

I think it’s because everyone knows he has no such ambitions, no expectation that he’s working to promote himself above and beyond the company party. And how can everyone be so sure of this?

Because they all know what’s in his closet. And he knows they know.

Lindsey Graham is never running for national office because the rumors about his sexual orientation would get a whole new level of scrutiny, whereas now, it’s don’t ask, don’t tell. Even recent Speaker of the House Denny Hastert was never thought to have presidential ambitions. He was installed as a safe person to do Tom Delay’s bidding. There are rumors about the ex-wrestling coach, too, and last election cycle, under the threat of a real race by Blue America favorite John Laesch in 2006, they almost came to the public in the post Mark Foley environment. And I must say, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has his own rumor filled history that’s been percolating below the surface again now that’s he’s assumed his leadership responsibilities.

Closeted gay Republicans serve a very important function in the GOP ecosystem. The GOP likes to put them in key positions where they can be trusted to hold the party together among warring factions, putting a face on the party to promote the party without promoting themselves at anyone else’s expense. If they ever fail to perform the assigned function, well, secrets have a way of finding daylight when the people who keep them need to keep a man in line.
Why Republicans Recruit House Boys | Firedoglake


Interesting theory, and it does make sense. But that doesn't make it any less sad. There is a 'glass ceiling' here that the Democrats shed some time ago, being that the best people for the job may be out of contention because of their sexual orientation or sexual history. Thats ridiculous. And having to live in the closet, as opposed to a Barney Frank, leaves you open to blackmail as happened to Lindsey Graham (one of the few GOP'ers I have any time for)- in this case from his supposed political allies.

Originally Posted by sabang

Lindsey Graham...was recently blackmailed by the Tea Party

Got any facts to support that claim?

Yes Jet, but just for a change why don't you do some work and Google it yourself?

loved it when the democtats flooded california with immigrants , then the immigrants voted to outlaw poofs ''marrying ''
HHAHAHAHAAH

^ True, that is funny, as is that many blacks voted against it, too.

Originally Posted by sabang

Yes Jet, but just for a change why don't you do some work and Google it yourself?

Coz this is Issues.

Bill Hague on t'other side of Pond is now caught up in an "Is he, Isn't he" controversy. No such hangups from the Labour party, who've had a few gays in high office.

The photograph is hardly fodder for the tabloids: two men dressed in T-shirts and jeans, smiling broadly behind hip sunglasses as they take a walk in a park on a sunny day in London.

Yet the snap is likely to haunt the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, forever. Its publication has unleashed a maelstrom of internet-based rumour and speculation about his friendship with the 25-year-old man pictured with him and the state of his marriage to his wife, Ffion.

... Last week, a threatened public outing at the hands of a Sunday newspaper led the Prisons Minister, Crispin Blunt, to announce he had separated from his wife to ''come to terms with his homosexuality''.

In May, the finance minister, David Laws, resigned over revelations about his expenses that revealed his sexuality.

Events in Britain over the past few days have once again highlighted questions about the internet, privacy and laws to protect individuals from defamatory or damaging innuendo.

While there have been successful defamation actions against those using the internet to disseminate offending material, the speed of communications provide little relief beyond principle because when they emerge, like a genie out of the bottle, they become impossible to put back.

For Hague, who is an elected official, responding to legitimate questions about the circumstances of his employment of a friend as an aide is part of the accountability attached to those on the public payroll.

What is tragic is that Hague's wife - who is neither an elected official nor a public servant - has been forced to endure a terrible outing of her own at the hands of her husband, who has tried to salvage his political career by laying out the distressing circumstances of their failed attempts to have a family.

Net gossip forces MP into painful confession


So "Is he, or Isn't he"? Who knows, who cares. You can be sure there will be more in the Press though.

Isn't it about time we all grew up?

Yep, don't care. People are people; yet, I see the left froth at the mouth and point fingie-poos if a Conservative has a wild party. Who cares.
I do mind jerks like the wikileaks prick, who will cost military and civilian lives because of his severe hatred of war. Sure, we don't like war, but sometimes it is necessary to keep sorry a**es like his free.

Republicans block bill to lift military gay ban

Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked an effort by Democrats and the White House to lift the ban on gays from serving openly in the military, voting unanimously against advancing a major defense policy bill that included the provision.
The mostly partisan vote dealt a major blow to gay rights groups who saw the legislation as their best hope, at least in the short term, for repeal of the 17-year-old law known as "don't ask, don't tell."
If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming congressional elections this fall, as many expect, repealing the ban could prove even more difficult — if not impossible — next year. With that scenario looming, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that a lame-duck session was being planned and that lifting the ban would be taken up then.
The episode upset advocates who believe that neither President Barack Obama nor Reid did enough to see the measure through.

Republicans block bill to lift military gay ban - Yahoo! News


The GOP continues merrily along the demographic road to Irrelevance.
It ain't the case yet, but at this rate all that will be left will be religious nuts, and fat old southern homophobic white guys.

^ Get a grip, SB, and find out the whole news. The DADT repeal was tacked onto the Defense spending bill, as was an abortion bill and the left's DREAM act, all of which are totally separate issues that the left tried to sneak in. The DREAM bill was the worst -- allow kids of illegal immigrants an open door to citizenship if they graduate from the US schools that taxpayers already paid for and go to college or join the military (more taxpayer money). In addition, if these kids are "undocumented", how the hek do they know the kids were in the country at the age of 16? Just a lefty ruse to add to their voter rolls.
And, the DADT bill should be decided by the military, and they don't want to change it right now.
The abortion issue: sure, soldiers pay for the op but they use free military facilities to do so, thus meaning the govt is subsidising their baby killing.
Check the voting, too. It wasn't only the GOP who voted against it. The Senate vote was 56-43 -- even Prince Reid voted against. When will you realise that the dems still have a majority in the House and Senate? You are as bad as ray blaming the GOP for things the left did themselves. I can't wait for the GOP to take over; I will blame the dems whenever a bill does not pass and wait for you to howl.

A majority in the Senate hardly matters though, given it's ridiculous anachronistic procedural rules. You need a 'super majority' to get things done.

As far as it being stymied because it was tied up with other matters, that should be an easy one. All the GOP has to do is make a Party statement that it is in favor of repealing 'don't ask, don't tell', and awaits the Bill. Only a minority of it's base would object, unless the US has really gone socially backwards since i was last there. And electorally a winner, as well as removing the hypocricy of the several closet Republicans now.

^ ha! They did that with several other bills and the dems laughed about repealing afterwards. Sure, the GOP ain't saints, but they're a dam sight better than the country-destroying dems.

Judge orders lesbian reinstated to Air Force

A federal judge ruled Friday that a decorated flight nurse discharged from the Air Force for being gay should be given her job back as soon as possible in the latest legal setback to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton came in a closely watched case as a tense debate has been playing out over the policy. Senate Republicans blocked an effort to lift the ban this week, but Leighton is now the second federal judge this month to deem the policy unconstitutional.
Maj. Margaret Witt was suspended in 2004 and subsequently discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy after the Air Force learned she had been in a long-term relationship with a civilian woman. She sued to get her job back.
Judge orders lesbian reinstated to Air Force - Yahoo! News

Next Issue- what about transgenders in the Military or Politics?