Bil Browning

Barney Frank on gay republicans

Filed By Bil Browning | October 23, 2006 7:13 PM | comments

Filed in: Entertainment, Marriage Equality, The Movement
Tags: Barney Frank, Bill Maher, LGBT, Republicans, television

Barney Frank eviscerates his opponent (I have no idea who he is. You can tell me in the comments!) on Bill Maher's show. They talk about gay Republicans, LGBT rights, gay marriage and more. With so many Republican readers (and contributors), I'll be interested in getting their views on this clip. Is Frank right?

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

This is brilliant. Brilliant...

Bill, I found this today, and as I logged in to post it, you'd beat me to it by two hours.

I don't think anyone can debate this...I look forward to the attempt though ;-)

Don Sherfick | October 24, 2006 7:07 AM

The opponent's name is Chuck Morse; I've seen him listed as a Republican in one place but an Independent in another. He's also described as a "write-in" candidate upset with people messing with him in a Wikopedia entry. (I guess nobody can get a Frank statement on him)

Don Sherfick | October 24, 2006 7:18 AM

Ooops, strike my last comment...before watching I thought "opponent" meant his congressional opponent. The name shown in the clip for the other guy is Stephen Moore, a member of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.

Jeff Newman | October 24, 2006 7:38 AM

This issue has become a huge problem for the Republicans, and deservedly so.

They have arrived at a crossroads whether they recognize it or not. The right wing of the party can no longer support the notion that gay sex should be illegal (as in Santorum et. al. in their reactions to Lawrence v. Texas) and yet defend their gay staffers and legislators. It's one or the other.

Why aren't the Republicans who disagreed with Lawrence insisting on purging the party of all queers? In their minds, these people are engaging in activities that should be illegal, so people like Santorum (and many other right wingers) are in effect employing and supporting people they believe should be classified as criminals.

The notion that gay people are engaging in criminal behavior is, of course, ludicrous, but they (the right wing) put themselves in this position, and now they're having a hell of a time trying to wriggle out of it.


Thanks for sharing!

Chris Douglas | October 24, 2006 5:01 PM

I agree with everything Barney Frank said when he speaks of forwarding the careers of those who would make us criminal.

I would also note, however, that in Indiana, there have been times when a Republican candidate has taken a more forward position than Democratic opposition, and that this has been helpful to us.

What are the examples? (At this point, those of you who know me well, and have heard this before, can stop reading.)

1. Republican Secretary of State Sue Anne Gilroy as a candidate for Mayor in 1999 agreeing to incorporate sexual orientation into the city's written nondiscrimination policy. That pledge was not matched by Mayor Peterson, who made no such promise himself. We did not see progress in the Mayor's office for public employees until 2004, if I'm not mistaken, some 3 or 4 years after Sue Anne Gilroy amended the nondiscrimination policy to include sexual orientation in her own office. Peterson waited until after his re-election. (By that time, we had the irony of a conservative Republican President of the United States, George Bush, enforcing a nondiscrimination policy more inclusive than the Democratic Mayor of Indianapolis.)

2. Gender Identity appeared in Secretary of State Todd Rokita's campaign policy, and then in his office policy (in addition to sexual orientation) , and ultimately in candidate Mitch Daniels' campaign policy in 2004 before any democrat incorporated gender identity.

3. Republicans Scott Keller and Lance Langford were a necessary part of the majority for passage of the HRO because their votes were necessary to replace those in the Democratic majority who were voting against us.

There are more such examples and ironies. No supporter of George Bush, I am nevertheless amused to note that he has spoken publicly in a more supportive fashion of civil union than any leading Democrats in Indiana that I'm aware of. No supporter of the conservative leadership in Congress, I am nevertheless amused to note that it quietly passed a pension bill that provided protections for the retirement accounts of unmarried partners, a very concrete policy step forward improving the lives and retirement prospects of millions of gays.

(We have occasionally had nationally renowned Democrats promote local Democratic candidates whose positions were less progressive than their Republican challengers.)

The bottom line is that we fare much better when we are generating an environment in which the Parties are competing for our votes, and to generate that environment, we need to have gay Republicans.

Jeff Newman | October 24, 2006 8:42 PM

Chris, you mention Rokita a lot in your pro-Repblican posts, but I recently saw a photo of him smiling next to the vile Eric Miller.

Is there a chance that he is playing both sides? If so which side is the fool?

Marla R. Stevens | October 25, 2006 3:56 AM

One reason for not doing a party purge is that folks like Santorum have depended on gay talent to get them in office and keep them there. I do have to wonder at the size of the ethical disconnect necessary for these gay fundraisers, PR people, and other assorted staff to do these jobs for these creeps. They are not Chris Douglas clones, carefully weighing the delicate balances all with an eye to creating the best for his people. They are facilitating the vilest of the vile. And some, like the Foleys and Driers, and such, are the vilest of the vile themselves, shoring up het facades by consistently voting against themselves and their own people. I've seen people, known people, up close who have done this -- even brought down a few in my time -- enough to know the toll it takes on their souls enough to feel sorry for them -- for the fear they live with, for the poison that such traitorous, self-wounding infuses them with, for the slow melting of integrity and courage and so many other things good in a person until they end up empty shells of beings with no one to comfort them in the end but preachers who have nothing to give them but more opportunities for self-hatred.

Yes, they bring it on themselves but they are victims, too, as well as victimizers. Such a pity.

In your Sue Anne Gilroy example - doesn't she have a gay son? If so, that puts her decision in a different light, but still kudos to her.

While yes its true we needed Scott Keller and Lance Langsford's votes to win the HRO, its still sad that they are only TWO out of FOURTEEN republicans on the council and their fellow republican council members fought tooth and nail to stop the HRO passage, even trying to invoke an obscure Roberts Rules of Order guideline to keep it from even being heard on the floor. Also, their fellow republican Jim Bradford, asked them to leave the party based on their HRO support.

I think its great that Rokita and Brizzi have the anti discrimination policies that they have but what influence do they really have within the party? If their policies had any bearing on the Republican party, then why did SJR7 pass with flying colors from EVERY single Republican in the House and the Senate? Why was the HRO met with such strong resistence?

These examples are nice but Sue Anne Gilroy isn't even an elected official. Todd Rokita does not have a vote in the General Assembly. Locally, you may have Scott Keller and Lance Langsford on city council but you also have Ginny Cain, Scott Schneider, Jim Bradford, Ike Randolph, etc.. (I could go on)

In the General Assembly, there are no Republican examples of a David Orentlicher, Ed Mahern, Billie Breaux or Vi Simpson....instead they give us Brian Bosma, Pat Miller, Matt Drozda, John Waterman, Brandt nauseum.

I agree with your last paragraph about both parties should be competing for our votes but I disagree with your last sentence that it takes gay Republicans to do that. It takes both parties reaching out to us. With the exception of the very few examples given, I'm not seeing that from the Republicans. Especially the ones who directly impact the laws that affect us.