Republican and Gay - Does It Matter?
Jim Johnson over at State of Sunshine rightfully mourns the loss of his friend.
Posters at The Buzz are equally sad and dismayed.
Ralph Gonzalez apparently died in a murder-suicide resulting from a love triangle. Three men were killed in total, all gay.
My concern is that the comments, and sentiment, include statements on how he will be missed as well as how his sexual orientation shouldn't matter.
A dear friend sent me his astute observation:
The conundrum is that this guy spent his professional life getting individuals elected who were patently opposed to his lifestyle. Congressman Feeney, for example, was at the forefront of the "Marriage Protection Act" which would have created a constitutional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Now, in his death, many of the same Republicans who joined forces with him are saying his lifestyle is of no relevance because he was a good guy.
In order for an individual who is gay to be accepted by the detractors of the gay community, must they wage war against that community of which they are a part? Or, is it the line of reasoning that, "I hate gays, but he was one of the good ones"?
Continuing the conundrum, does Mr. Gonzalez even warrant any favorable reflection? Why did he aid and abet those specific candidates? At best, it was out of denial or embarrassment; at worst, and more likely than not, it was for the money.
Regardless, can conservative Republicans have it both ways? Can they be opposed to gays and lesbians, yet be protective of those within their ranks who are? Does it comport that one can disparage and oppress others, all the while being caring and compassionate for those whom they view, "are the good ones." Will the pendulum swing to the point where, while they are against wholesale gay marriage, they are willing to concede to a proposal which would provide civil unions for "Gay Republicans"?
Just some thoughts.
Indeed.
posted by kate @ 2:59 PM
24 comments
24 Comments:
Looks like the two people below had pretty good insight.
"Guns, gays and republicans. Three things the media loves to talk about. This is going to get bad."
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 12:54 PM
"It is a tragic day when anyone this young dies, much more so with three people. I could care less about the intimate details of the departeds' lives. It's still a tragedy.
I suppose someone will come up with a statement how these guys just reduced the number of republicans similar to who ever said that abortions and democrats are both brought you to by your local dnc.
However, I do agree with 12:54's assesment that his story will get worse and more coverage for all the wrong reasons.
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 01:35 PM
So if someone who's homosexual and Republican doesn't view issues X, Y & Z the way the homosexual community believes he should, then that's because s/he's is in denial or embarrassed by who them are, or it was for money, or somewhere inbetween?
That's bullshit!
So far, at least religion has been kept out of this ongoing useless discussion of hypocrisy.
I always wonder if anyone ever faces their own hypocrisy, or do they just keep using it in a fruitless attempt to make stereotyped social commentary about people they don't like.
I think the two of you woke up on the wrong side of the bed of nails.
Who are you to say that this guy did or did not agree with the homosexual community? That's not the point. It simply reminds me of the shock one would feel in the 1960s to see someone of color work hard to keep "Whites Only" bathrooms legal.
And WMD - I write about my own attempts at living up to my own ideals all the time. That's me facing up to my own hypocrisy.
And SO FAR, I don't see anything useless about this or any other ongoing discussion.
And neither do you. So cut the sh*t.
Ok - busted again. I must admit there is a warm fuzzy there some where since you believe in me.
rw - Due to the tragedy of the situation I will refrain from sarcasm. However, you somehow wish to couch this in terms where an individual makes no pretenses about who they are and yet they hold views that other like individuals might feel are atypical or contradictory.
This was not case. Tragically, this was an instance where an individual went to great lengths to conceal and camouflage that segment of their life; which is anyone's right. Still, this went beyond a closeted individual voicing atypical views - it was such an individual making a very good living helping to place people in positions of power whose feelings went beyond merely supporting legislation banning gay marriage or adoption.
rw, why would someone work to get people into office who don't think they are fit to adopt a child and who think that their lifestyle is sinful, dirty and disgusting? Further, why would they go above and beyond to stay secreted to the world and their client base? I think you stated it best when you rhetorically wrote that it was because "s/he's is in denial or embarrassed by who the(y) are, or it was for money, or somewhere in()between."
wmd of debate - I think that your posts only serve as an example of the hypocrisy that is evident in this tragedy. You have failed in your attempt to move the debate away from the organic issue of "why is right to view a trait in some individuals as 'sinful, sick and disgusting' and that same trait in others is overlooked."
Had this tragedy never taken place and the victims decided to come out and they lived to tell you that they wanted to adopt, wanted to marry, wanted to be treated like everyone else, would you offer them compassion and understanding or would you do just what you did on this blog. That is, defend the hypocrisy of those who can weep for the loss of an individual, yet not see that it was the threat of their retribution that kept that individual from ever truly opening up to them.
>>rw, why would someone work to get people into office who don't think they are fit to adopt a child and who think that their lifestyle is sinful, dirty and disgusting? Further, why would they go above and beyond to stay secreted to the world and their client base? I think you stated it best when you rhetorically wrote that it was because "s/he's is in denial or embarrassed by who the(y) are, or it was for money, or somewhere in()between."<<
Yep, that's right. And African- Americans who think Affirmative Action is a bad idea are "Uncle Tom's" who "kiss whitey's ass."
Your little paragraph that I quoted above is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Nope, there just had to be an ulterior motive, it couldn't possibly be because he might happen to have agreed with the people he supported. No frickin' way. It's impossible for a homosexual to not be in favor of homosexual marriage or civil unions or permitting homosexuals to adopt. Nope, they all march in lock-step, aren't allowed to wander off the reservation at all, they must participate in group-think. Therefore this guy was either embarrassed, in denial, or in it for the money. Yep, that had to be it, couldn't be anything else. Either way he spent at least part of his life stabbing his own kind in the back. What a sellout.
I don't think it's about agreeing or disagreeing with the politics of it - marriage, civil unions, adoption. I think what we're talking about here, rw, is that this guy worked hard to get guys elected who thought homosexuality was wrong. Sinful. So Gonzalez kept his homosexuality a secret - didn't suppress it or get married to a woman and pray to be straight (which is a whole other post). This guy continued to f*ck men all while working to put people in positions of power who believed men f*cking men is wrong. Sinful.
Most people can't quite work that duality out. And so here we have this discussion.
Come on. You must see this valid point.
But you can continue to pretend you don't. Fine by me.
"Regardless, can conservative Republicans have it both ways? Can they be opposed to gays and lesbians, yet be protective of those within their ranks who are? Does it comport that one can disparage and oppress others, all the while being caring and compassionate for those whom they view, "are the good ones." Will the pendulum swing to the point where, while they are against wholesale gay marriage, they are willing to concede to a proposal which would provide civil unions for "Gay Republicans"?"
This was the original statement that I was referring to. It appears to me be calling out Republicans for being hypocrites. Did I have the wrong perception?
"Did I have the wrong perception?" - no, which is why you were so brilliantly knee-jerk in your defense of that hypocrisy.
Oooh, that weak debate tactic of stating the obvious when at a loss for a meaningful retort brings back memories; it's so 2006. Compared to RW and WMD, the bloggers from back during campaign season seemed almost cerebral and skilled in the art of discourse.
Anon 3:56 says:Did I have the wrong perception?" - no, which is why you were so brilliantly knee-jerk in your defense of that hypocrisy"
What did I write that defended the hypocrisy?
Wow - this rec'd more posts than she exepected, I bet.
Some gays are OK, but most are just trying to push their anti-biblical lifestyle on the rest of us. If they stayed in the closet it would have been much better for these here United States of America.
Also, I believe that only those that have a job AND own real property should be allowed to vote. By "real property" I mean land. Then, and only then, do they havea stake in what happens.
Put that in your pipes and smoke it.
WMD - Do you stand in front of a mirror and dry run this material? I am hard press to think anyone could sincerely buy your attempt at verbal slight of hand. As to the question which you presented- the second paragraph of your second post.
I have gifted you with my presence long enough, but before I go, one suggestion - consider changing your handle. When one calls themself the "WMD of Debate" readers might actually be lead to believe that you possess some hint of a skillset in argumetative writing and/or speech.
>>Most people can't quite work that duality out. And so here we have this discussion.<<
Who said it was a "duality" except for some of you? From the outside looking in it might appear to be a duality, but that doesn't mean it was. But that's you putting your expectations upon someone else based upon, in this case, them being homosexual.
The guy very well could have supported the people he did because he was embarrassed, or in denial, or for the money, or something in-between. I'm not denying that's possible. But to frame it as though that's got to be the reason because apparently homosexuals are all supposed to march in lock-step on certain issues is asinine. I'm going to give the guy the benefit of the doubt that he actually studied the issues and independently reached his own conclusions upon which he based his actions. Because guess what? That's possible, too. Very possible. In fact, if he was like the majority of people, and I have no reason to believe he wasn't, that's exactly what he did, because that's exactly what most of us do.
>>Come on. You must see this valid point.<<
No, I do not view it as a valid point. The guy you quoted was reaching way beyond that. S/he is saying the guy supported people who didn't support the official mainstream homosexual agenda, and that he was a sellout, and the only reason they can figure he'd not march in lock-step like he was supposed to do is because he either had an inferiority complex or he was on the take.
Now anyone can try and spin this anyway they want to try and do to clean up what s/he said, but it's bullshit.
Once again, rw, we all see what we want to see. You are taking your own motives and projecting them on to someone else.
People do this all the time.
In contrast, I read my friend's email as *questions* from someone who obviously knows a thing or two about the situation.
We all choose the eyes with which to see and I like mine better. Baby blue and all...
Anyway, you are right to point out that this guy might have had other motivations besides money or being in denial. He might very well have agreed more with these Repubs and decided to work for them because of it.
To say one or another theory is bullshit is wrong. Because they are all valid.
I will say this - to back a candidate who says "I am against civil unions because our society benefits from classifying marriage as strictly between a man and a woman" is completely different from saying "Homosexuality is wrong and sinful".
Another example - Barack Obama being against slavery reparations for a host of logical reasons is different from him saying that it's because slavery wasn't so bad.
If you can't see the difference then you are as lost as those you rail against.
For the last time I am not talking about all gay people needing to be in lock step on political issues.
I am so glad I'm here for you. Pointing out what is, to most people, so completely obvious.
Part 1; "I always wonder if anyone ever faces their own hypocrisy, or do they just keep using it in a fruitless attempt to make stereotyped social commentary about people they don't like."
8/26/2007 6:38 PM
That statement is not a defense. It is a statement about how much I see most social commentary expoused using the hypocrisy of the attacked entity as the basis of the attack.
In this case, the root issue is "the Marriage Protection Act" and "Gay Marriage". The common component in both of those is the word "marriage". I assume we are all familiar with the arguments for both sides. I will reverse the statement in the opening post: Do gay's disparage and oppress others, all the while being caring and compassionate for those whom they view, "are the good ones." ?
Does one's definition of marriage stop one from engaging with those opposed to the same definition?
In other words, if I am for gay marriage and you are for straight marriage, that's it - we can not engage in any thing else?
Part 2: Read all the way to the end and you will see how I found my name. I started as Anon. At the end, IFly gave it to me.
kate said...
Why go anonymous? That's my question. Let your freak flag fly, sweetie.
You're among friends.
And don't feel guilty about anything. Guilt is a wasted emotion.
8/18/2007 6:16 AM
Anonymous said...
The ability of an idea to be explored in the world of abstraction is hindered when it is grounded in concrete reality.
Does not the interpretation of art change when one understands the creator of same?
8/18/2007 6:40 AM
kate said...
Standing up for your ideals is admirable and patriotic and...ummm...cool.
Besides, knowing your identity - being able to pick you out of a lineup, that sort of thing - doesn't mean you'd be understood.
Trust me. I know that of which I speak.
8/18/2007 6:54 AM
IFly said...
What a small world, I'm heading up to Barrow, AK this week to fly a Bowhead whale project. Should be fun if not a bit cold. Beats dodging hurricanes down here I guess.
Anon, nature abhors a vacuum, likewise philosophizing for philosophy's sake is of limited utility to the living. If not the interpretation, certainly the value of art is quite dependent on the identity of the creator, be that right or wrong.
8/18/2007 9:16 AM
Anonymous said...
Interesting perspective that an idea or concept has value based on the identity of the creator, not the substance or content.
8/18/2007 9:33 AM
Anonymous said...
still processing - I hope philosphy majors don't drop dead simply because philosophizing for philosophy's sake is of limited utility to the living.
If we were to read a political platform statement, would the value of the statement be based on content or the identity of the author?
8/18/2007 9:56 AM
rw said...
All products ever made are symbols of oppression. Therefore, we should buy nothing and live in caves and eat plants even though they don't like to be eaten and not talk to each other because all oppression begins when two people communicate. We will then be pure and world peace will arrive.
Long live the revolution! Long live ideological purity. Long live those who refuse to sell out. We shall inherit the dirt of the earth and revert back to apes.
Oh, excuse me, "revert" is a politically incorrect term, an example of specie-ism gone amok. Hopefully, the apes will eat us and put an end to the human race which has done nothing but cause trouble.
Long live mass suicide! Long live the absolutely unfettered and pure liberalism that recognizes that life itself is an act of oppression since no creature can survive without eating another and freedom will not reign until the earth is a cold lifeless rock floating aimlessly through space.
8/18/2007 10:29 AM
IFly said...
Anon-
On the first point, we do not exist in the abstract and as individuals we have not infinite time available to devote to cogitation(abstractly we humans as a thinking collective might exist perpetually to ponder ideas transgenerationally but, I digress), therefore the usefulness of exploring any idea is certainly limited to some extent by the utility of the idea itself and it's potential for implementation.
As for art, certainly, monetary or utilitarian value is dependent on the creator. A truly starving artist taken to it's culmination leaves the artist dead never to create more(again arguable I suppose depending on one's thoughts on transcendence) so art for art's sake might be a self-defeating premise if it doesn't sell. *Tangent warning* Which does spark the thought that perhaps art behaves as a virus, whose existence relies on the infection of new hosts, so in that respect perhaps a starving-to-death artist is acceptable so long as that artist exists long enough to inspire other carriers. At least "Art will go on." (cue Celine Dion?) In any event, does a work carry a different interpretation if it was created by someone with true life experiences tied to the work vice the artist was say a horse with a paintbrush on it's tail? I posit that it does. Is Vanilla Ice rap or pop, does it matter for art's sake?
As for a political platform, which premise regarding politicians must we assume? All politicians are liars? How much difference can one candidate make? The value of a platform is quite certainly dependent on the author in the respect that any platform's worth lies in the change it might enact. Again the train of thought is a bit derailed as I believe Kate was referencing the value of attaching yourself to your ideas instead of shirking responsibility for your words in a mask of anonymity. For discussion's sake even using a consistent, unique, yet still anonymous moniker at least gives merit to you as an individual that is not afraid to support or defend your ideas within the arena instead of detaching yourself from your suppositions on a whim using "Anonymous" to fog your escape. Doing such is akin to lobbing "conversation hand grenades" into a crowd. I consider such WMD's of debate.
8/18/2007 10:54 AM
>>Anyway, you are right to point out that this guy might have had other motivations besides money or being in denial. He might very well have agreed more with these Repubs and decided to work for them because of it.<<
Leave out all the other tripe you wrote to make yourself feel better and with this paraghaph you're starting to get it.
>>I will say this - to back a candidate who says "I am against civil unions because our society benefits from classifying marriage as strictly between a man and a woman" is completely different from saying "Homosexuality is wrong and sinful".<<
And now you said something more to the point. There's all sorts of people who might not agree upon why they support the same issue, but they still do so realizing they are getting the same end result.
And what was bullshit, and still remains bullshit, is the writer claiming that the guy's motivation just had to be because he had an inferiority complex or for money or something inbetween. Had that same writer said that it was possible that the guy just happened to have studied and independently reached a conclusion that goes against what the mainstream homosexual community usually does, then credit would have been due. But that possibily wasn't even considered. The only reasons mentioned why this person would "aid and abet those specific candidates" was because he had personal flaws or for greed, or something sinister inbetween.
espoused
It seems to me, as a homosexual who rarely marches in lockstep with the dreaded "homosexual agenda", that Gonzalez was hardly closeted. While he may not have been the Grand Master in any Pride parades or walked around in full leather daddy regalia at The Shaft, no one who actually knew or worked with the man is expressing any sort of surprise at the mention of his sexuality. This argues that it was at least a known quantity to some extent in the circles he operated in.
Which brings us to the sticky wicket with this whole issue: Motivation. Kate, you said that he spent his life getting people who hate homosexuals elected. This may be true, however what seems more likely is that he spent his life getting people elected by using homosexuality as a Rovian Wedge. The people in question probably didn't have all that burning a hatred for homosexuals, but they did have a burning desire to get into public office. Gonzalez had a burning desire to get them there. So the end justified the means and perhaps the hope was that, once they got into office, they could focus on other more important issues.
So, frankly, I think it's impossible to tell what Gonzalez's actual views on homosexuality, same-sex marriage, hate crimes, same-sex adoption or any other issues really were because, as he was a self-avowed political creature, one simply can't be sure when he was acting for belief and when he was acting for expediency. His motivation was to win. We can assume as he worked for the Republican party, he was at least loosely interested in seeing their plans and programs put in place, but anything more than that is questionable because he sacrificed public certainty when he became a political operative in today's climate.
I am liking quakerjono in a respectful kind of way. Brevity and all encompassing in 3 paragraphs. I wish I had said it that way.
Don't get all worked up, quakerjono. WMD said in a *respectful* kind of way. ;-)
Damn, QJ, you da man!
Yes. Yes, I am the man. It's a lot of pressure, but I'm up for it.
Good comments on related type story from James Toranto at opinionjournal:
Last year's outing prompted the Idaho Statesman, a Boise paper, to conduct an extensive investigation into whether Craig had engaged in homosexual acts, something he flatly denied in a May interview with the paper. The Statesman was unable to substantiate the claims of homosexuality, so it withheld the story--until today, when, with the arrest as a news peg, it published nearly 4,000 words on the subject.
The Craig conviction has, predictably enough, prompted mortification on the right and Schadenfreude on the left. The latter is an easy-to-understand partisan/ideological temptation, especially given the comical aspects of this story. It is physically impossible to keep a straight face while thinking about the "wide stance" defense.
That said, we'd like to step back and, without drawing any conclusions about Craig beyond what is on the public record, make a case more generally for liberal compassion toward closeted homosexual politicians who oppose gay rights.
The liberal view of homosexuality is based on two claims: an empirical one and a moral one. The empirical claim is that sexual orientation is inborn, a trait over which one has no control. The moral claim is that homosexuality is no better or worse than heterosexuality; that a gay relationship, like a traditional marriage, can be an expression of true love and a source of deep fulfillment. Out of these claims flows the conclusion that opposition to gay rights is akin to racism: an unwarranted prejudice against people for a trait over which they have no control.
For the sake of argument, suppose this liberal view is true. What does it imply about the closeted homosexual who takes antigay positions? To our mind, the implication is that he is a deeply tragic figure, an abject victim of society's prejudices, which he has internalized and turned against himself. "Outing" him seems an act of gratuitous cruelty, not to mention hypocrisy if one also claims to believe in the right to privacy.
According to the Statesman, the blogger who "outed" Craig did so in order to "nail a hypocritical Republican foe of gay rights." But there is nothing hypocritical about someone who is homosexual, believes homosexuality is wrong, and keeps his homosexuality under wraps. To the contrary, he is acting consistent with his beliefs. If he has furtive encounters in men's rooms, that is an act of weakness, not hypocrisy.
Defenders of "outing" politicians argue that the cruelty is not gratuitous--that politicians are in a position of power, which they are using to harm gay citizens, and therefore their private lives are fair game. But if the politician in question is a mere legislator, his power consists only of the ability to cast one vote among hundreds. The actual amount of harm that he is able to inflict is minimal.
Anyway, most lawmakers who oppose gay-rights measures are not homosexual. To single out those who are for special vituperation is itself a form of antigay prejudice. Liberals pride themselves on their compassion, but often are unwilling to extend it to those with whose politics they disagree.
Post a Comment
<< Home