Good As You

It's been a long time since I played "Clue" -- I read the scorecard as "Steve."

I figured it was some new version wherein the gay Steve (of Adam and Steve fame) is used as a weapon in the Bedroom.

Sometimes I wish I didn't believe that everyone has a right to their own opinion. LCR's seem immune to the fact that "republican" has quickly become synonymous with "Right Wing Extremist" to so many people. Steele's election as Chair just solidifies this interpretation.

Gay Republican? Hmmmm. Gay? Sure. Republican? I guess. Gay Republican?! YOU HAVE TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME! Here's a snippet from the California Republican 2008-2011 Party Platform. Certainly not a club I care to join.

"We support the two-parent family as the best environment for raising children, and therefore believe it is important to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. We believe public policy and education should not be exploited to present or teach homosexuality as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle. We oppose same-sex partner benefits, child custody, and adoption."

I don't think that Log Cabin, or anyone else following politics, ever expected Michael Steele to support civil unions. He's been pretty consistent about that.

What set Steele apart from the other contenders for leader of the Party is that Steele will allow those who do support civil unions an equal standing and not call into question whether they are "a true Republican". There has been for many years (many many years) a drive for purism in the Party and those who didn't toe the line on social issues were often publicly and loudly derided and denounced. Steele has said that this will stop.

It was that which Log Cabin was noting.

Now it is very easy to simply dismiss all Republicans as identical. And some folks could, I suppose, find it personally gratifying to find and list every anti-gay position that Steele will take (and he will) and then use that as "evidence" against Log Cabin.

But LCR was right. Steele's election was a victory for moderates even though he isn't a moderate himself. This is actually something that all the pundits and talking heads from all the various factions of politics can agree on.

I guess we have a choice... hate Log Cabin or actually measure them by what they are saying. At times it certainly can be very tempting (as markl illustrates) to just let go and do some good old-fashioned hating.

But it ultimately hurts us all.

The game is called Cluedo.

It was the Reverend Green in the conservatory with the lead pipe.

TRiG.

Timothy: Well I certainly am not doing any old-fashioned hating (and don't think you are accusing me of such). However, I think if LCR wants to support people like Steele or Palin despite their marriage/C.U stances, then they need to come up with a word other than "inclusive."

"The game is called Cluedo."

Not for us in the states, TRIG. And it's only in the latest edition that our Mr. Green has become a Reverend.

Recent LCR endorsements include:

"McCain is an Inclusive Leader Who Will Appeal to Independent Voters."

"Gov. Palin is an inclusive Republican who will help Sen. McCain appeal to gay and lesbian voters."

Those endorsements were both disingenuous and reprehensibly irresponsible. They also perfectly illustrate the conclusion I reach when I "measure them by what they are saying."

The LCRs have done nothing to further my community's cause within their party. They are pariahs amongst their own, they have achieved nothing substantive, and by supporting those who renounce my right to marry, to adopt, and to potentially hold my partner's hand should he lay dying in a hospital bed, they are complicit. And until they stop handing out endorsements to those who would see us stripped of what little we have won, they will remain complicit.

Two words: cognitive dissonance.

Should really change their name. What's the point of bringing up the L or the G portion of their moniker if its a political quagmire in their neverending quest for "big tent" recognition, on top of being fodder for ostracism? Not saying you can't be a gay Repub, you just can't be a gay Repub that fights for gay rights (hence WHY BOTHER BRINGING UP). Unless you get a kick from the novelty of devoting an organization to ideological contradiction. Neo-conservatism and homosex may not be mutually exclusive in all cases, but compatible they are not.

I know there's plenty of greedy, worldless, jingoistic, sanctimonious, theocratic, un-nuanced, xenophobic 'mos. Republicans, they are! Don't know how they manage to reconcile their second class status with their incessant touting. Oh wait, read the first sentence in my post.

I think what we are seeing is two groups using the same word differently.

When someone from the left/liberal/Democrat sphere uses "inclusive", they mean that the person about which they are speaking has personal and political philosophies that are supportive of the struggles of persons in groups other than the demographic to which they belong.

For example, Senator Whoever has an inclusive agenda because he supports marriage equality, reparation, a path to citizenship for all immigrants and accomodations for the prayers of Muslim students, for example. He is "inclusive" because he agrees with the goals of minority groups.

But those from the right/conservative/Republican sphere use the word "inclusive" differently. They mean that the person about which they are speaking includes others who are not from the same demographic but may not necessarily adopt the goals of that demographic.

For example, a Republican would say that President Bush was racially inclusive because of the very large number of racial minorities appointed to positions of the highest power in the country. Democrats would not see him as racially inclusive because he did not adopt or advance specific agenda items held in importance by racial minority groups.

Similarly, to a Republican, John McCain was "inclusive" of gays because he hired gay people and did not actively advocate against gay rights. Democrats cannot fathom how such a term could be applied to him.

Log Cabin sees Steele as "inclusive" because his big tent includes those who agree with him on affirmative action and those who do not, those who agree with him on abortion and those who do not, those who agree with him on marriage equality and those who do not.

I think that perhaps when we ask for inclusive, what we really mean is supportive. I know for me, inclusive isn't enough. I don't want "a place at the table"; I want the same priveleges that go to anyone else at that table.

But I do recognize that inclusive can be a step in the direction of supportive. We forget that long before we got supportive Democrats, we were delighted to get inclusive Democrats. And, in fact, that is still where we are in some instances: in some states in which Democrats have a monopoly on the state government, we still don't even have hospital visitation.

But overall the Democrats that started with inclusion now have moved quite often to support. And we celebrate every instance in which that happens.

I choose to also celebrate when Republicans move towards inclusion. And I'll especially celebrate when some few start to move to supportive. And I'm sure you'll party with me when the Republican Party finally has a majority that drops the anti-gay crap.

markl,

Yes, I know, you'd rather hate. That's OK.

They'll keep right on lobbying politicians, running advertisements, and putting a face on gay people to those whom you can't stand in the hopes that slowly they can sway opinions, reverse stereotypes, and influence opinion within the Republican Party. They'll argue, pursuade, and provide evidence to folks who wouldn't even let you in the door.

And they get votes. Not a lot, but usually the one or two abolutely essential Republican votes to make up for Democrats who don't support us. They will provide the argument for the one vote we need or get a House Rep to abstain or "be absent" if they aren't willing to vote with us. And time after time after time our rights advance due to those single votes. In fact, I can't think of an instance off hand in which rights were advanced without any Republican support.

For which you call Log Cabin names and accuse them of complicity.

But you know what, they don't care. They'll fight for you and your rights even though all you give in return is seething hatred.

Timothy: I agree and disagree with 3:59. I fully agree that they are using inclusive differently. However, I'd disagree with your assessment that we are the ones who should be using a diff. term (i.e. "I think that perhaps when we ask for inclusive, what we really mean is supportive.")

If you ask me, "inclusive" is stronger than "supportive." To me inclusive means we are not only supported or tolerated (that one makes my skin crawl), but rather fully included as part for the normalcy spectrum. That's why I have so much trouble with the way LCR throws it around. Because while they might get lip service from McCain/Palin/Steele/etc. and while those same politicians will surely take their vote, the reality is that they are getting little in way of policy that would actually help to more fully include LGBT people.

But regardless of the terminology, I think it's wrong for an organization to use either word for a politician, D or R, simply because they agree to acknowledge our existence. One rightfully assumes more than that when they hear either term.

And I think you would agree that few left-leaning organizations would ever use such a descriptor for a Democratic politician with Steele's record. If they did, I would certainly speak out in the same way.

"Seething hate." Sigh.

I've learned that like the "sanctity of traditional marriage" and "it's all about the children" arguments, it's never good to argue with the "seething hate" response.

Jeremy,

OK. We can each own the term.

But you do have to understand that they will use it how they define it. And it isn't out of some intent to deceive; they think that they are being clear when they say "inclusive".

I agree that Democrats would not use "inclusive" to describe Steele. And really, that's kinda why LCR exists; they speak the same language as Republicans, a fact that matters hugely when lobbying.

But the next time you read a Log Cabin press release try to keep in mind both how they speak and what they are trying to accomplish.

When they say, "Steele is inclusive", what they mean is, "Hey, it's time to celebrate. The guy who is believed by everyone to be the least hateful to gays of all the candidates just became party leader. The Party choose to put a guy out there that isn't making social issues his number one priority. The wingnuts are furious. Yahoo."

When they say, "McCain is inclusive", what they mean is, "Hey it's time to celebrate. The Party didn't nominate either Huckabee or Romney. And McCain isn't going to campaign on fighting gays or 'protecting marriage'. He finds that distasteful. He has gay people at the top of his staff and will even on rare occasion be an ally. Yahoo."

If all Log Cabin did was denounce Republicans, be they horrible and dreadful or be they somewhat kinda not bad, they would have no use whatsoever. That's what Stonewall Democrats are for.

Log Cabin's job is to praise the Republicans that are moving in the right direction, the ones that are making it further out of the cave and can almost see sunlight.

If you consider how incredibly better the McCain campaign was to us v. the last Bush campaign, then you can see how they can endorse him. They aren't trying to get you to become a Republican, Jeremy, they just are trying to give some measure of gradient and basis for judgement for those gay folks who are Republicans. They were saying, "he's not Bush".

So let's save the attacks for when they really blow it. Like Palin. Yeah, that one was waaaaay off the mark.

First off, Timothy, please don't use the word "attack." You know I don't attack people in general, and have not attacked LCR this time.

Now, as for you thoughts: I think there is an underlying disingenuity to this assessment. Essentially what I'm hearing is you saying that their terms --inclusive, supportive, or what have ya -- exist on a different plane of reality. You are coming at it from an intensely political standpoint, which I get. But despite the realities of American politics, there should be a grain of truth that leads you towards your cause. And I'm sorry, but if you have to make these kinds of explanations for what inclusive does and does not mean, I can't help but feel that there is a bit of straw-grasping going on.

I know you think I speak liberal, but that is really not the case. First and foremost, I speak human. Secondly, I speak a language that tries to cut through all bullshit (regardless of party) and get to the real. So I'm coming at this from the perspective of people, the product they are ostensibly trying to move toward the GOP. When I heard them describe McCain/Palin as "inclusive" and what have you all summer long, I wasn't concerned about playbooks and partisan stratagem -- I was concerned about the human beings that they were trying to move towards a ticket and party that, IMHO, would have drastically delayed our community's progress. And that's the same thing I care about with Steele: Whether or not they are selling the American public a false bill of goods.

You and I analyze this stuff. However, most people do not. I would argue that the VAST majority would read a press release in which a gay group calls a politician "inclusive" and expect far more than we get from Steele, Palin, or even McCain.

So in closing: I'm not asking that they denounce Republicans. I'm not even suggesting that they should have supported Barack Obama. But I am saying that when it comes to sizing up figureheads and putting that information out to the public, they should be fair. It's one thing to support a person despite their shortsighted stances. It's another to spin major policy differences that drastically affect LGBT people in a way that makes them sound as if they are minor matters of disagreement.

I will add, however, that I do basically think LCR's mission of moving their party is a noble one. Also, I'll always defend them when the Pete LaBarberas of the world try to deny them of their place within the party because of their sexuality. My main problem is with their messaging.

If I were tasked with running LCR (can you imagine?), I would focus on selling the positives of the GOP. I would tell LGBT people why they shouldn't just automatically assume that they are Democrats. I would fight misinformation while pointing out little known facts about the party. I would ratchet all this up ten times where it is under current LCR leadership.

However, what I would not do is make apologies for the bad. I would look my leadership in the eye and tell them how and why they are wrong in not supporting gay rights. I would stand against anyone, from my party's presidential nominee to a city councilman, who stands against my principles and views in regards to fairness. That's how I would help the party move -- by showing the party leaders that they are wrong, while offering an always-open door if/when they are ready to discuss.

They owe it to everyone to directly and publicly take on shortsighted policies by which actual LGBT lives are affected. They owe it to themselves.

I think we'll have to just disagree.