Photo of Rep. Schock in swimming trunks

[Lunar]

isn't this a year old?  I'm one of the most gossipy posters on this forum  too.

[Lunar]

Guys, he might just be metrosexual.

Let's be honest, metros are just gays in denial.

Not really.

What's the connection between dressing nice and liking pussy?

check out his interview with Colbert, which I believe is the most recent Better Know a District
http://www.colbertnation.com/video/tag/Better+Know+a+District

[Lunar]

also, he seems to recognize Steven Colbert's joke about the shocker better than anything else, for what it's worth

[Lunar]

would a gay person know about the shocker? 

[Lunar]

I think people mostly care because of the GOP's [perceived?] anti-gay image.  There's three openly gay members of Congress and their party affiliation doesn't rhyme with schmeblican


Funny enough, I think the GOP has been getting more and more distant from their Log Cabin friends every year, a trend which will reverse itself or the party will be destroyed, although not necessarily directly related

[Lunar]

I'm not a party strategist, I don't know what they should do.  I'm just saying they'll either become less anti-gay or they'll be gone, in the long-term. 

If a bunch of gay people are clamoring to become part of your party,  conventional wisdom says to embrace them.  If the Democrats can do that with Blue Dogs the GOP should be able to do so with some butt buddies.

[Lunar]

The problem is that they actively and rabidly demonize gays

Eh, I disagree that most (or even many) Republicans demonize gays.

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution."

CONTROVEORSY

[Lunar]

Ok, this thread doesn't have to be about Santorum [and Phil was not the one to bring him up, let the record show in bold!]  Phil is right that Santorum was making a technical/legal argument there, but it doesn't matter because that sort of nuance is meaningless when it comes to how something is perceived.

I think it's reasonable to say that among the pro-gay rights communities, Republicans have a PR problem despite the institutional arrangements such as the Log Cabin Republicans in place.   I think we all know that many states are going to be legalizing gay marriage with majority support, and I think Republicans running local races are going to have to find an answer (I hope that'll be getting the government out of marriage altogether, we'll see).

I mean, frickin' Lawrence v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas) was in 2003 and only 6-3, and the gay people were arrested at gunpoint for having sex in 1998 when Bush was governor.  Not too long ago.

[Lunar]

The state that is yellow had sodomy legal by 1970, dark red are states that had sodomy illegal until 2003...

[Lunar]

Phil is full of love today