Jeff Gannon Part 2

[crimresearch]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is as odious as Black and Republican or female and Republican.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"False analogy. These would only be equivalent if the Republican party wanted to amend the constitution to exclude blacks and women from something, or supported restricting them from certain federal jobs or used misogynism or racism as baits in federal elections."


Mmmmm.. I'm not so sure about that. Maybe if *only* the Republicans had a track record of that, but the Dems pretty much have to own up to excluding gay people from the military.

So to make a distinction about being gay and Republican does fall a little flat.

 

[kimiko]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is as odious as Black and Republican or female and Republican.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"False analogy. These would only be equivalent if the Republican party wanted to amend the constitution to exclude blacks and women from something, or supported restricting them from certain federal jobs or used misogynism or racism as baits in federal elections."
Mmmmm.. I'm not so sure about that. Maybe if *only* the Republicans had a track record of that, but the Dems pretty much have to own up to excluding gay people from the military.

So to make a distinction about being gay and Republican does fall a little flat.

Clinton tried to lift the ban on gays in the military in the early nineties; the goal was total inclusion. At least the Democrats pushed through what they could. I don't see that as different from the civil rights or women's movements, where advances were made in steps.

 

[crimresearch]

Not in America he didn't.

As I've posted before, complete with ample links and references, Clinton, *while* he had a Dem majority in Congress, went back on his campaign promises to make gays full citizens, and implemented one of the worst policies ever, 'Don't ask, Don't tell'.....

ETA: And as far as a comparison with minorities in the military, that wasn't a result of waiting patiently for happy days to arrive, it was a result of a President signing an executive order and making it happen.

Clinton didn't 'try', he got exactly the military he wanted.

In that light, being gay and being not-Dem are not mutually exclusive.

 

[RandFan]

That's not why they are discrediting him, that's the hook of the story that the media is picking up that makes Republicans seem hypocritical.

Claiming it is just "the hook" changes nothing. I guess you didn't read SusanG's article.

I note in your response you failed to address a very important point. I will give you an opportunity to respond before I address the rest of your post.

RandFan
I'll tell you something. There was a time when the Democratic party was very racist. You might not know this but most Blacks did not abandoned the party. They believed that [the] Democratic party stood for values that they thought worth fighting for.

Is it too much to imagin[e] that Log Cabin Republicans could have the same fortitude and foresight?[/b]

Edited to fix spelling errors.

 

[kimiko]

Not in America he didn't.

As I've posted before, complete with ample links and references, Clinton, *while* he had a Dem majority in Congress, went back on his campaign promises to make gays full citizens, and implemented one of the worst policies ever, 'Don't ask, Don't tell'.....

ETA: And as far as a comparison with minorities in the military, that wasn't a result of waiting patiently for happy days to arrive, it was a result of a President signing an executive order and making it happen.

Clinton didn't 'try', he got exactly the military he wanted.

In that light, being gay and being not-Dem are not mutually exclusive.

Well perhaps you don't remember the firestorm of criticism he received from military people as well as general society. Don't ask, don't tell is ridiculous, but better than the previous policy of being gay being incompatible with military service.

And I never suggested being gay and being not-Dem wasn't sensical, it's being Republican and being gay given the specific opposition to fundamental civil rights. It's not that they have failed to push a more inclusive agenda, it's that they are pushing a purposely biased agenda.

 

[kimiko]

Claiming it is just "the hook" changes nothing. I guess you didn't read SusanG's article.

I note in your response you failed to address a very important point. I will give you an opportunity to respond before I address the rest of your post.

Edited to fix spelling errors.

I didn't address this because what I would need to make my case is highly subjective and due to general societal racism at the time, it isn't a good equivalent to present gay civil rights. Given the flip-flopping of the south from a Dem stronghold to a Republican one, the movement of Dixicrats to the Republican party, Eisenhower's disagreement with Brown vs. Board, Johnson's Great Society and civil rights legislation, the class issues facing most blacks at the time, the high profile Democratic supporters of civil rights like Robert Kennedy, and the general opposition of conservatives of both parties to racial equality, I feel the Democrats of the civil rights era were chosen for specific reasons.

One's political decisions are constrained by available choices, so the degree of difference makes black Democrats and gay Republicans qualitatively different categories. Gays aren't large geographically concentrated voting blocks as blacks have been, so they aren't a prize for any party. Whether a party supports equal rights has more to do with the general values of the party members than any particular political maneuvering. But when they are put on the chopping block as bait for the Christian vote, I have to ask why loyalty to one's party overrides loyalty to ideals. (Particularly when this administration doesn't act very Republican.)

 

[RandFan]

I didn't address this because what I would need to make my case is highly subjective and due to general societal racism at the time, it isn't a good equivalent to present gay civil rights.

No, it is a great example. There is at this time a general aversion to gay marriage. As I noted before 60% of Californians voted for the defense of marriage act. John Kerry and John Edwards were both against gay marriage. The example is very appropriate.

Given the flip-flopping of the south from a Dem stronghold to a Republican one, the movement of Dixicrats to the Republican party, Eisenhower's disagreement with Brown vs. Board, Johnson's Great Society and civil rights legislation, the class issues facing most blacks at the time, the high profile Democratic supporters of civil rights like Robert Kennedy, and the general opposition of conservatives of both parties to racial equality, I feel the Democrats of the civil rights era were chosen for specific reasons.

You are compressing history to suit your thesis. Republicans for decades were strong supporters of civil rights. The democrats advocated segregation. Regardless Blacks could have formed a new party or left the Democratic party. They did not because there were values and principles they believed it. This is something you are apparently unable to see or fathom.

One's political decisions are constrained by available choices, so the degree of difference makes black Democrats and gay Republicans qualitatively different categories.

You simply state that there is a degree but don't really make the case. Log Cabin Republicans don't share many of the values and principles of Democrats. You want them to abandon those principles over a single issue.

Gays aren't large geographically concentrated voting blocks as blacks have been, so they aren't a prize for any party.

I'm not certain of the relevance. I know that Blacks are taken for granted by the Democratic and Republican party because they act in a monolithic fashion. Political diversity gives one power.

Whether a party supports equal rights has more to do with the general values of the party members than any particular political maneuvering.

I'm sorry, but would you stop this? A party is not a living entity. A party is a group of people, its leaders and its policies. The Republican party is neither monolithic nor static.

But when they are put on the chopping block as bait for the Christian vote, I have to ask why loyalty to one's party overrides loyalty to ideals. (Particularly when this administration doesn't act very Republican.)

Rhetoric. That the administration doesn't act very Republican is your opinion and is of very little use in our discussion.

Also, avoid fallacy ok? You state "one's party overrides loyalty to ideals"? Are you stating that the only "ideals" a log cabin Republican can or should have is gay marriage.

 

[RandFan]

That's not why they are discrediting him, that's the hook of the story that the media is picking up that makes Republicans seem hypocritical.

This is just rationalization. Sorry you don't get it.

False analogy. These would only be equivalent if the Republican party wanted to amend the constitution to exclude blacks and women from something, or supported restricting them from certain federal jobs or used misogynism or racism as baits in federal elections.

You miss the point. By all means attack the policies of the Republican party. But how do you convey that to an individual who's only sin is that he is gay and Republican. He is guilty by association and sexual identity. This is wrong.

I find being gay and actively supporting Republicans to be equivalent to blacks supporting apartheid in South Africa or women supporting the Taliban, just not quite so extreme.

You can find anything you want. John Kerry and John Edwards were both against gay marriage. What of the gays and lesbians who supported them?

No, because being an American does not automatically lend support to the agenda of anti-gay Americans.

Not everyone in the Republican party is anti-gay yet you paint them all as anti-gay because they currently advocate a policy that is anti-gay. George Bush and a Republican Congress were put into power by a majority of Americans. The analogy is perfect.

Donating and voting for Republicans supports their entire agenda, not simply the parts one agrees with.

BS, this is so wrong. Politics is about coalitions and compromise. Many Lesbian activists are against Pornography because they believe that it degrades women. Yet they support the Democrat party which defends pornography on 1st amendment rights because they believe in most of its principles.

There are many such contradictions in politics.

I never said anything even remotely like saying they are dumb or redneck.

Fair enough, I am guilty of a straw man. However you clearly show contempt for them. I would like to know why you think educated, civically minded and decent people do something so "unconscionable" as you say as to support the Republican party.

Nor have I insulted gays or lesbians.

Yes.

I simply think any gay or lesbian who actively supports the Republican party is compromising on essential civil rights, which I am against personally, so I question why they do it.

Your accusation is broad and general. What essential civil rights?

My personal opinion is that anyone who voted for non-inclusive Republicans, including the Bush presidential ticket, or donated money and time the general party are compromising on fundamental civil rights.

Could you elaborate on these fundamental civil rights and how supporting the Democrat will further them?

Maybe you should try some of that "understanding" you think I need to see how I find civil rights to be fundamental and not secondary to other political issues.

I don't at all accept that Log Cabin Republicans relegate civil rights to a lower priority.

Um, no. I think they shouldn't compromise on certain values, by supporting a party that doesn't. Following Bush's endorsement of the federal amendment, I would question exactly what they'd have to do for gay Republicans to leave the party.

Log Cabin Republicans work actively to change the attitudes of all people both Republican and Democrats on this issue. However that President Bush is in favor of such an amendment is no more an indication that he is against civil rights any more than John Kerry and John Edwards are against gay marriage.

There are other parties that support small government. Homophobia is a problem in the society as a whole, but Democrats haven't made discrimination an important issue.

Republicans have not made discrimination an important issue.

"Civil union"

Yes and no. Most people believe that Gays and Lesbians should have the same rights granted to married couples but not have the title of marriage.

You paint everyone as homophobic and discriminatory even when they acknowledge that Gays and Lesbians should enjoy the same rights when it comes to insurance, hospital visitation, will, etc.

I grow weary of your feigned ignorance of what your party has done and supported

What feigned ignorance? I want to know what exactly you are talking about?

...you should be aware of examples of them opposing rights for homosexuals...

Fair enough.

...and supporting restrictive sexual values.

Another thread.

Bush endorsing the Federal Marriage Amendment

In part due to what he sees is improper judicial activity. I disagree with him but I understand it to a degree.

firing Arabic linguists who are gay

Link or citation please?

appointment of Tom Coburn, Patricia Ware, and Joe McIlhaney Jr but no scientists to PACHA

Relevance and citation please? Is this directly related to gays and lesbians?

appointing Claude Allen and Wade Horn to the Department of Health and Human Services

Relevance

not objecting to the chair of the House oversight subcommittee on HHS doing an intimidating audit of AIDS organizations

Background and context please?

funding abstinence based sex education in lieu of effective comprehensive programs

Relevance?

changing the birth rate in evaluations of abstinence based programs to make them seem more effective

Relevance?

removing information showing the effectiveness of comprehensive sex ed from the CDC website

Relevance?

removing information about the use and effectiveness of condoms from the CDC website and replacing it with information emphasizing the failure of condoms

Relevance?

the Employment Non-Discrimination Act's resistance by Republicans

Back ground and context please?

blocking approved funding to the UN Population Fund

Again, background, context and relevance?

This isn't inclusive at all, but just from notes I'd taken on certain things and others that I remember, so I wouldn't doubt if there was far more.

I'm not certain what you think it means.

Maybe it offends you that people point it out...

Please see my OP. I have stated over and over that the Admin F'd up. I'm damn glad this type of information comes out. This is not the point of my thread and I took great pains to make that clear.

However, pointing out hypocrisy speaks directly to the credibility of the administration, so it is an issue.

Pointing out that Gannon is gay does NOT point out the hypocrisy of the administration (assuming there is any in this instance). I personally think all administrations have hypocrisy, some worse than others and I'm happy whenever hypocrisy is exposed regardless of the party affiliation.

I don't at all accept that it is only the Republican party that is hypocritical. I'm glad I live in a free society where such hypocrisy is exposed.

 

[kimiko]

No, it is a great example. There is at this time a general aversion to gay marriage. As I noted before 60% of Californians voted for the defense of marriage act. John Kerry and John Edwards were both against gay marriage. The example is very appropriate.

No, it isn't because Democrats weren't trying to push back civil rights and Republicans presently are.

You are compressing history to suit your thesis. Republicans for decades were strong supporters of civil rights. The democrats advocated segregation. Regardless Blacks could have formed a new party or left the Democratic party. They did not because there were values and principles they believed it. This is something you are apparently unable to see or fathom.

I said it was highly subjective. The fact is that Democrats were doing substantive things to combat racism. Not only are Republicans not doing substantive things to combat homophobia, but they are actively using it and supporting restriciting civil rights.

You simply state that there is a degree but don't really make the case. Log Cabin Republicans don't share many of the values and principles of Democrats. You want them to abandon those principles over a single issue.

I don't expect them to abandon their conservative principles, I thing it would be more logical to support a party that is BOTH conservative AND isn't pushing discrimination.

I'm sorry, but would you stop this? A party is not a living entity. A party is a group of people, its leaders and its policies. The Republican party is neither monolithic nor static.

The party panders to the values of its members. Not all members have to share those values, and I'm not suggestiing they all do. Enough of them do that it has affected party actions. Is that so hard to understand? Or is there some legitimate conservative reason for the proposed amendment and wide variety of restrictive sexual value appointments, funding, actions, etc.

Also, avoid fallacy ok? You state "one's party overrides loyalty to ideals"? Are you stating that the only "ideals" a log cabin Republican can or should have is gay marriage.

No, I think they don't have to compromise on their conservatism or their civil rights, because there is an alternative.

 

[RandFan]

No, it isn't because Democrats weren't trying to push back civil rights and Republicans presently are.

Odd statement. Democrats were trying to keep blacks and whites seperated.

I said it was highly subjective. The fact is that Democrats were doing substantive things to combat racism. Not only are Republicans not doing substantive things to combat homophobia, but they are actively using it and supporting restriciting civil rights.

"Segragation today, segragation tomorrow and segragation forever".

There ARE Republicans doing substantive things to combat homophobia. Log Cabin Republicans

I don't expect them to abandon their conservative principles, I thing it would be more logical to support a party that is BOTH conservative AND isn't pushing discrimination.

I reject your notion that the party is "pushing" discrimination.

The party panders to the values of its members.

Again, political parties are not monolithic nor static. Platoforms change. The republican party stands as a great opportunity to gays and lesbians to affect policy and change. That some of the policies is antithetical to gays and lesbians is no reason to leave.

Is that so hard to understand? Or is there some legitimate conservative reason for the proposed amendment and wide variety of restrictive sexual value appointments, funding, actions, etc. No, I think they don't have to compromise on their conservatism or their civil rights, because there is an alternative.

I voted for the defense of marriage act because I fell for the "institution" argument and thought it was the correct action. I came to decide that my opposition was wrong. Please note that I have always supported civil rights for gays and lesbians.

It was a debate in this very forum that caused me to change my mind, join the Log Cabin Republicans, support them financialy and actively campaign to end resistence to Gay Marriage. Odd that my opinion is different from so many Democrats. In any event I understand the entrenched opposition to Gay Marriage and I respect Gays and Lesbians who also understand and are working to improve a great and historical Poltical Party.

 

[Ladewig]

kimiko
firing Arabic linguists who are gay

------------------------------------------------------------------------

RandFan
Link or citation please?

CBS News story about firing Army linguists specilaizing in Arabic.

.

 

[crimresearch]

Well perhaps you don't remember the firestorm of criticism he received from military people as well as general society. Don't ask, don't tell is ridiculous, but better than the previous policy of being gay being incompatible with military service.

And I never suggested being gay and being not-Dem wasn't sensical, it's being Republican and being gay given the specific opposition to fundamental civil rights. It's not that they have failed to push a more inclusive agenda, it's that they are pushing a purposely biased agenda.

Sorry, but this has been thoroughly threshed out, and it just did not happen that way.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell made things *worse* for the reasons that I and others have given.

And it wasn't implemented because of a firestorm of criticism...
the excuse that Clinton was too weak of a President to follow through on his campaign promise is just too lame for words.

 

[kimiko]

You miss the point. By all means attack the policies of the Republican party. But how do you convey that to an individual who's only sin is that he is gay and Republican. He is guilty by association and sexual identity. This is wrong.

I've already said that I disagree with using his sexuality against him. Using it against the Republicans is fair game, just like using race when conservatives criticize the Democratic party as hypocritical by saying they take advantage of blacks by taking their money and votes but not accomplishing more towards equalizing racial disparities in society.

John Kerry and John Edwards were both against gay marriage. What of the gays and lesbians who supported them?

Kerry and Edwards were in favor of civil unions. In my opinion, civil union is just a way to say marriage using discriminatory language. However, supporting the universal advancement of the rights of marriage is more important than the language, that can come later.

Not everyone in the Republican party is anti-gay yet you paint them all as anti-gay because they currently advocate a policy that is anti-gay. George Bush and a Republican Congress were put into power by a majority of Americans. The analogy is perfect.

I'm not saying all Republicans are anti-gay, I'm saying the party has adopted some values of their anti-gay members.

BS, this is so wrong. Politics is about coalitions and compromise. Many Lesbian activists are against Pornography because they believe that it degrades women. Yet they support the Democrat party which defends pornography on 1st amendment rights because they believe in most of its principles.

Since the Democrats aren't specifically advancing pornography and given there aren't liberal parties that are against the 1st amendment, this isn't equivalent.

Fair enough, I am guilty of a straw man. However you clearly show contempt for them. I would like to know why you think educated, civically minded and decent people do something so "unconscionable" as you say as to support the Republican party.

I don't care if you think I show contempt for them as I think you are wrong. Just because I find something unconscionable doesn't mean other people don't. I don't think every educated, decent person should or do agree with me.

Your accusation is broad and general. What essential civil rights?

Equality before the law.

Could you elaborate on these fundamental civil rights and how supporting the Democrat will further them?

I don't think they should have to support a Democrat, just not support a Republican who supports the federal marriage amendment.

Log Cabin Republicans work actively to change the attitudes of all people both Republican and Democrats on this issue. However that President Bush is in favor of such an amendment is no more an indication that he is against civil rights any more than John Kerry and John Edwards are against gay marriage.

I already said I respect them for restricting their support to inclusive Republicans. As for President Bush, he endorsed an amendment to insert discrimination against gays and lesbians in licensing of marriages directly into the most important document our country has.

Republicans have not made discrimination an important issue.

I consider making a proposed amendment to the constitution an election year issue is to elevate it to importance. Just my opinion.

Yes and no. Most people believe that Gays and Lesbians should have the same rights granted to married couples but not have the title of marriage.

If they don't object to the rights, then there is no reason the object to the title of the legal recognition.

You paint everyone as homophobic and discriminatory even when they acknowledge that Gays and Lesbians should enjoy the same rights when it comes to insurance, hospital visitation, will, etc.

Again, if they don't object to the rights, there is no reason to object to the name.

Link or citation please? ... Again, background, context and relevance?

Every example was of Republican party support for traditional sexual values to support my opinion that the values of some Republicans are supported officially. It is highly subjective and as a Republican it is a forgone conclusion that you'd disagree. So if you actually care, you can look up what I listed, but I'd rather not waste my time being a google monkey when it will be dismissed as readily as my 'reasons for blacks supporting Dems' list.

Please see my OP. I have stated over and over that the Admin F'd up. I'm damn glad this type of information comes out.

I agree.

Pointing out that Gannon is gay does NOT point out the hypocrisy of the administration (assuming there is any in this instance).

I disagree. Pointing out he is gay does expose the hypocrisy of the administration, provided they knew, just like collaborating with a criminal, provided they knew. It is subject to being verified like all the other (actually important) issues in this possible conspiracy are. I am also happy to have hypocrisy exposed, and agree that all administrations have it.

I don't at all accept that it is only the Republican party that is hypocritical. I'm glad I live in a free society where such hypocrisy is exposed.

I don't think only Republicans are hypocritical, and I never said only they were. I agree that hypocrisy should be exposed.

 

[kimiko]

Sorry, but this has been thoroughly threshed out, and it just did not happen that way.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell made things *worse* for the reasons that I and others have given.

And it wasn't implemented because of a firestorm of criticism...
the excuse that Clinton was too weak of a President to follow through on his campaign promise is just too lame for words.

I still maintain that Democrats supported the advancement of gay rights, despite different opinions on the veracity and effectiveness of the attempt.

 

[crimresearch]

Here is what a Democratic President does when he wants someone to have their civl rights rights...when the rest of the party stalls, he finds a way to get some changes made..

What Clinton did, IMHO was a sell-out plain and simple.

But we are derailing the thread, so I will drop it.

 

[kimiko]

That some of the policies is antithetical to gays and lesbians is no reason to leave.

As everything else I've already addressed in other posts, I'll just comment on this statement. I think that because so many Americans are willing to compromise on certain ideals and stay with major parties, that this fosters a political environment where people feel they must stay with a major party and encourages continued compromises. That is the crux of my questioning of the tactics of gay Republicans and other special interest groups. Every resource people put into parties- money, votes, volunteering, feedback and membership- is a resource that can be leveraged. I disagree with only using some of these and feel a larger impact can be made using all of them.

Having said that, I respect the Log Cabin Republicans for their work towards equality.

 

[RandFan]

I've already said that I disagree with using his sexuality against him. Using it against the Republicans is fair game, just like using race when conservatives criticize the Democratic party as hypocritical by saying they take advantage of blacks by taking their money and votes but not accomplishing more towards equalizing racial disparities in society.

Mentioning Gannons sexuality in the articles only serves to attack Gannon. There is no evidence that Republicans even knew he was Gay. Noting the fact he is gay can only serve to attack Gannon.

Kerry and Edwards were in favor of civil unions.

As are most people.

In my opinion, civil union is just a way to say marriage using discriminatory language. However, supporting the universal advancement of the rights of marriage is more important than the language, that can come later.

Agreed but how does this make Republicans anti-civil rights? Kerry, Edwards and the Republican party are all against it.

I'm not saying all Republicans are anti-gay, I'm saying the party has adopted some values of their anti-gay members.

Hardly a reason for some to abandon their party.

Since the Democrats aren't specifically advancing pornography...

I think your response misses the point. To support Democrats anti-pornography Lesbians must set this issue aside. Also, I don't think it is as simple as saying that Republicans are advancing discrimination. I think some are sincere in their desire to protect marriage and some are defiantly using the issue for political purposes. I don't think John Kerry or John Edwards or even the Democratic party get a pass for this. Dean is another thing altogether. He gets high marks. Perhaps the Republicans push defense of marriage more than Democrats but Kerry and Edwards could have had a bit more of back bone.

I don't care if you think I show contempt for them as I think you are wrong. Just because I find something unconscionable doesn't mean other people don't. I don't think every educated, decent person should or do agree with me.

It looks like contempt to me. I could be wrong. Do you have any level of respect for them?

Equality before the law.

Gays and lesbians absolutely deserve equality before the law and not just in some philosophical sense. However, in an absolute sense no one has equality before the law. Those with money, fame or political power are often treated differently than those that don't.

Than being said, we are talking about two issues here. One is marriage and the other is the specific rights afforded to those who are married. Republicans are trying to protect an institution that they mistakenly believe is threatened. You and I both know they are wrong. However when asked, most people support civil unions but oppose gay marriage. The actions of Republicans are nto specifically anti-gay though to be sure they are short sighted.

I don't think they should have to support a Democrat, just not support a Republican who supports the federal marriage amendment.

I think that is what they are doing.

I already said I respect them for restricting their support to inclusive Republicans. As for President Bush, he endorsed an amendment to insert discrimination against gays and lesbians in licensing of marriages directly into the most important document our country has.

President Bush is not the Republican party. And please see above commentary regarding the amendment.

I consider making a proposed amendment to the constitution an election year issue is to elevate it to importance. Just my opinion.

I will concede that the issues was used for political purposes. I truly regret that.

If they don't object to the rights, then there is no reason the object to the title of the legal recognition.

It is a misbegotten attempt to protect what is considered a sacred institution.

Again, if they don't object to the rights, there is no reason to object to the name.

See above.

Every example was of Republican party support for traditional sexual values to support my opinion that the values of some Republicans are supported officially.

Sexual and Homosexual not necessarily the same thing.

Thanks,

RandFan

 

[RandFan]

As everything else I've already addressed in other posts, I'll just comment on this statement. I think that because so many Americans are willing to compromise on certain ideals and stay with major parties, that this fosters a political environment where people feel they must stay with a major party and encourages continued compromises.

There is always compromise. That is the very nature of politics. However, by staying and fighting the rewards for gays and lesbians are great. Also there is simply the principle. It takes fortitude and foresight to stay and fight. I respect those people who dislike Bush and the Republican party but did not run off to Canada or Europe but stayed to fight.

I have such abiding respect for Log Cabin Republicans. I think there efforts will be historical. I think they have a better chance of changing hearts than most.

Having said that, I respect the Log Cabin Republicans for their work towards equality.

Cool. I will withdraw any comments made about your personal feeling towards them and apologize to you for making them.

 

[kimiko]

I will concede that the issues was used for political purposes. I truly regret that.

Mentioning Gannon's homosexuality is currently being used primarily for political purposes, and I regret that. While I feel there is a very minor legitimacy to it, it is far more damaging than it merits mentioning.

Sexual and Homosexual not necessarily the same thing.

I included both to address the 'traditional values' subject from both the homosexuality and prostitution angles.

I accept your apology and apologize if I made it seem like I considered individual Republicans who support gay rights to be anything other than admirable.

Fight the good fight.

 

[Ladewig]

And it wasn't implemented because of a firestorm of criticism...
the excuse that Clinton was too weak of a President to follow through on his campaign promise is just too lame for words.

So, Are you saying there wasn't a firestorm of criticism or are you saying that the president should not have used the firestorm of criticism to back out of a campaign promise?

Sorry, but this has been thoroughly threshed out, and it just did not happen that way.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell made things *worse* for the reasons that I and others have given.

I can't find, in this thread, the reasons you and others have given that show why DA/DT made things worse. Could you go over them again?

If DA/DT made things worse, what should be done to fix it? And why hasn't President Bush done those things?