I have to ask where you got the graphic. That really cracked me up. :)

Yeah, but you're not a Log Cabin Republican, Allison. You're a Libertarian/Independent. I, personally, don't think there's anything wrong with voting Republican for the right candidate (former Indy City-County Councilor Scott Keller, for example, who's campaign I managed), but I'd never support the "party." Then again, I don't donate to the Democratic party either for the same reasons - no progress on our community. I donate to individual candidates that I think can make a change for the better.

Which means I prefer my individuality over being lost amongst the sheeple too - but I don't think Waymon's post is really aimed at us so much as the blind party supporters.

Childish drivel.

Do you earnestly think that by taking on this smug tone you will win over any gay Republicans?

I must admit, though, the image posted was pretty cute.

Um, I don't know if I'd say that LCR is really a cash cow for the GOP. Last I heard they were having trouble keeping their lights on....

I actually once dated a gay McCain supporter (I know!). He used that "Just because I'm gay doesn't mean I vote on one issue" line, and attributed it to Mary Cheney. I about lost it - I couldn't stop laughing. It was about the stupidest thing I had ever heard.

Are there gays who vote Democrat just because of gay marriage? Um, no, "other issues" are important to everyone, including Democratic leaning gays. To me, it's just that our experiences with being on the outside make us more sensitive to the way hierarchy limits potential, in general. Thus more likely to be on the left.

Oh, and Allison did have a point - LCR definitely represents not too many gay Republicans. Most gay Republicans I've known have been much scarier.

interesting post - I find that the gay GOP'ers I know are simply much more socially conservative and do not have a good understanding of their privilege nor of the intersections between reproductive rights, issues of poverty, etc within out OWN community

and the elephant looks very much like a toy from one of my favorite stores, see http://www.kidrobot.com/

Waymon- The way you just expressed yourself would've been appreciated if it had not been followed by the condescending "amen"'s in this comment thread. If what you're trying to do with this post is try to "show them the light", then you should be aware that what you created with one hand in the original post you destroy with the other hand as a result of that persisting "us vs. them" mentality. We're already a rather small sector of the population; we do not need further division. Besides, the excuses of "hurting my family/friends" you have used to scold the LCR come off ironically as self-righteous as those from the far right.

I understand how frustrating it can be to deal with some GOP gays. Kevin's latest article over at Citizen Chris, for example, is rather irritating in the manner in which it keeps labeling Giuliani and McCain as likely to not obstruct LGBT policy-making and being pro-gay. Nevertheless, it would be best to coax them through debate than to take on an accusatory tone and saying "Ya'll repressed homos better straighten up and join our side, because right now you're destroying my family, friends, and my life!". You'll just push them further away and confirm their prejudices that we're a bunch of partisan radicals with no real interest in gay issues, despite the fact that these very same individuals might be currently engaging in the same behavior.

I have always been surprised how “progressive” people do not always practice what they preach.

In college, I had 2 diversity classes and was even a graduate assistant for another one. One of the main points of these classes is to teach people not to make assumptions about individuals based on their (or society’s) stereotypes of that person’s culture, gender, religion, etc.

This site and bloggers claim they are progressive and they value diverse opinions. I think the idea of this article is valid and worthy of discussion but by the word choices, examples and stereotyping mentioned, it seems the purpose of this article is not for a discussion, but to see who is best about name calling and putting people down.

I have also had some training in civil disobedience. They were based on the work done by Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. One of the points in the training is that name calling and putting people down is a form of violence. Name calling says you think the other person is less than human. Not only is it morally wrong, it undermines the truth of the message and hinders the ability of that person to hear or understand the truth of the message.

Another point of the training, which I think fits to this discussion topic, is that if we are on the side of truth, the other person is not our enemy but another person who has been deceived and needs to know the truth. If we decide the other person is not worth trying to see the truth, then we are saying they are worthless and that is a form of violence. I think the Republican Party is needed if we ever want full equality. Although I disagree with many (most) members of the party, it doesn’t mean that I am willing to give up on them yet. If others have given up, that is fine, but that does not mean that I have too or that I am less than human for trying.

In Central Indiana, because of the people you mentioned in your article, we had a Republican city councilor who was one of the two original sponsors of Indianapolis’ Human Rights Ordinance which includes sexual orientation and gender identity. This councilor gets more people to the Lambda Legal Benefit than any other group or individual. This councilor raises more money for Indiana Equality than any other politician.

In Central Indiana, because of the people you mentioned in your article, the 7th Congressional District, will have a forum on LGBT issues with both the Republican Candidate and the Democratic Candidate (and probably the Libertarian Candidate). In this case the Republican Candidate has been outspoken against Indiana’s “marriage” amendment, is a sponsor of a current hate crimes bill, and has helped raise money for Indiana Equality. It has been interesting to now hear a lesbian say “Women’s issues are more important than LGBT issues” and a transperson say “War issues are more important that LGBT issues”.

To me, the battle is for full equality for LGBT people. To achieve full equality will require at least some Republicans to understand that as well—and that is my focus. If you want to use your efforts and energy to put me down or call me names that is your choice but it sure seems like there are many other places where that effort and energy could be used that could benefit us all.

I've been guilty of demonizing gay Republicans many times. I really don't get it either, Waymon. The Republican party is a shadow of its former self. It's sold out to the highest bidders - corporations and the religious right. Corps bring the $$ and wingnuts bring the votes.

Aligning with a party so far off track from what it claims to be is what I don't understand. I've said many times that the best way to fix the Republican party is to stop supporting it. These "moderates" need to realize the party has been clear that the party doesn't want them.

You cannot help the party (fix it from the inside) if they aren't ready to help themselves. They will not be ready to help themselves until they get their asses handed to them election after election for being out of touch with reality.

These people picked George W. Bush as their top guy twice running. Most people won't admit voting for him now, but he still enjoys enough support as to frighten us sane folks. With a 30+% base to work from, the kooks don't need but another 20% to win elections.

Gay Republicans, including LCR, feed that 20% that keeps legitimizing the kooks and growing their ranks. I have a number of Republican friends (Dave Wene is one I hold dear - so is Scott Keller.) I love them dearly, but every one of them uses one or more of the excuses Waymon listed above as their reason for continuing to support the party.

I just don't get it.

As a regular Republican reader of this blog this is another reason I find Democrats not realy to my liking.My views are center right on most national issues and I totaly support equal rights for all of and we should be allowed to hold differnt views for I am not a blind sheep I am Bi I am Tans so I must be a Democrat?Hardly there are many aeras the National Democratic party fails me so I wont support them on those issues and they personaly betrayed Trans folks of all kinds just recently so who are the real Tratiors Not GLBT Republicans thats for sure remember 30 odd Republicans voted for that bit of bad legeslation. So look to your own house before yelling Tratior. Btw I do not belong to the Log Cabin Republicans either but I usaly vote Republican and have been a dues paying memember.

This argument always annoys me:

I have always been surprised how “progressive” people do not always practice what they preach.

Right, because Democrats should just roll over and let Republicans control everything, because that would bring about the world that Democrats want to see.... I mean, it wouldn't, but it would be more in-line with what Democrats believe, which is that you just capitulate to everyone as a sign of respect.... Oh, wait, they don't, er, OK!

The only way it can start making sense is if policy means nothing, if somehow concrete reality doesn't exist and politics is an abstract competition between two empty ideologies, instead of a tool to bring about change to improve people's lives.

Oh, wait, I found the reason Republicans make that argument....

I have come to the feeling that it will be the same, no matter who is elected. Except for the Huckster, he is dangerous. McCain, Clinton, Obama or Romney. I don't things for the GLBT community or the country for the most part, will be that much different.