If one needed further proof that the GOP's "big tent" story line is a fiction, this ought to help put the myth to rest. It should get interesting watching the Christianist attempt to drive all gays (and moderates) from the GOP. Here is a portion of the newsletter sent out by the Idaho Values Alliance, which proudly identifies itself as an affiliate of the American Family Association:
One larger issue must be addressed. The Republican Party platform clearly rejects the agenda of homosexual activists. The Party, in the wake of the Mark Foley incident in particular, can no longer straddle the fence on the issue of homosexual behavior. Even setting Senator Craig’s situation aside, the Party should regard participation in the self-destructive homosexual lifestyle as incompatible with public service on behalf of the GOP.
No member of the Republican Party in the 1860s could represent his party and be a slaveholder at the same time. Nor can the Republican Party of today speak with authority and clarity to the moral issues that confront our society and at the same time send ambivalent messages about sexual behavior.
As I decide about five years ago, one cannot be a gay Republican unless and until the Christianist choke hold on the Party is broken. The complete newsletter can be found here: http://www.idahovaluesalliance.com/news.asp?id=596
1 comment:
Whatever else one "assumes" occurred in the Minneapolis airport, the hypocrisy of Republicans in dissing, and throwing Craig under the bus for the presumption of . . . what?
As all the hype settles, clearly a double standard is exposed by both Democrats and Republicans, both. Craig's taped conversation vis-a-vis the "sting" officer gets a misdemeanor ticket for a public nuisance. Meanwhile, Vitters indulges his appetites with madams and brothels -- and his wife proclaims it is part of god's plan.
Assuming Craig actually did make overtures to have same-sex, overtures are not quite the same as porking multiple prostitutes. The Republicans dumped Craig solely on the basis of an "overture," because "gay" is so "disgusting," throwing him under the bus, but the hetero retains honor a breach of the marriage covenant? And the latter is acceptable, while Craig is not?
I've been hesitant to "out" anyone for any reason, but have participated pillorying blatantly hypocritical behavior. NO MORE. All it does is stigmatize, and worse, it begets NO benefits to anyone. Oh, the self-righteous hypocrites sit on their perch throwing stones, like Mike Roger, Pam Spaulding, and Larry Kramer -- not that THEY have ever been hypocritical. Not that THEY may have benefited from a more enlightened context. Not that they mind be disowned.
But Spaulding won't even condemn torture porn promoting the RAPE, slicing, dicing, and abuse of WOMEN, because it is "tolerant" and "progressive." But if someone actually rapes, or gay-bashes, or physically harms another -- and if it is "queer" it's a different standard than if a non-queer did the same.
The LOSERS in the Craig affair are those who threw the stones. If Craig is telling the truth or not, what is his crime? Assuming it was a sexual pick-up in a public place, it was not public sex. Well, then we better raid every pick-up bar throughout the nation. Public solicitation of others is a very dangerous slippery slope. We throw the fag under the bus for what? We did what to Vitters, Allen, Gingrich?
What about Studds? Franks? McGreevys? Clinton? When it is people whose politics one agrees with, then we blame homophobia; but when it is those whose politics we disagree with, we crucify him. The HYPOCRITES are those throwing the stones, and whatever else one says about Craig, whatever happened in that restroom is now trivial once people awaken to queer hypocrisy.
Rogers, Spaulding, Avarosis should be ashamed. If Idaho Republicans abandoned Craig, it was because the queer community approved of THAT, so THEY did too. Did they approve of impeaching Clinton? Oh, and which of the two events is more heinous. A perjuring philanderer who begot DADT, DOMA, whose wife lost universal health insurance
OR
A questionable bust in a setup?
The STIGMATIZATION only serves to imprison gays as victims of two different standards, and thus retained in the closet in their eyes, but those who pillory ONE but not the others are NOT HYPOCRITES, how? I'm not defending Craig, because I'm not sure he did anything wrong. He may be a self-loathing homophile, OR the same stigmatized gay man as Studds, Franks, McGreevey, were "passed" like Clinton, Vitters, Cunningham, etc? But it serves the homophile HOW? Keeping MORE in the Closet?
Post a Comment