Log Cabin Republicans

[Moooooo]

Who we are

Log Cabin Republicans courageously stand on the front lines of today's most important battleground for gay and lesbian civil rights. We are the nation's leading voice for fairness, inclusion, and tolerance in the GOP.

Our party stands at a crossroads. The GOP must choose between fairness and freedom or intolerance and exclusion. Log Cabin works tirelessly to make sure the Republican Party chooses the right path. Ending up on the wrong side of history will cost the GOP for decades to come. So we tirelessly strive to achieve liberty and equality for all Americans.

What we believe

We are loyal Republicans. We believe in low taxes, limited government, strong defense, free markets, personal responsibility, and individual liberty. Log Cabin represents an important part of the American family-taxpaying, hard working people who proudly believe in this nation's greatness. We also believe all Americans have the right to liberty, freedom, and equality. Log Cabin stands up against those who preach hatred and intolerance. We stand up for the idea that all Americans deserve to be treated equal-regardless of their sexual orientation.

http://online.logcabin.org/

[Keystone Phil]

They're sooooo gay.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Freedom Fighters with a slight lisp.

[GOP = Terrorists]

Misguided.  Its like a black person trying to join the Democratic Party in Alabama in 1900.

[Yates]

I never understood why these people associate themselves with the Republican Party.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Misguided.  Its like a black person trying to join the Democratic Party in Alabama in 1900.

Maybe it was.  As early as 1935, black democrats were being elected to Congress - still well within the era of the dixiecrat influence.

The influence of the "Religious Right" will wane and things will change yet again.  Maybe someday 90% of gays will vote Republican

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I never understood why these people associate themselves with the Republican Party.

Do gays not have freedom of association?  That's like saying that you don't understand why straight people would associate with the Democrat party.

[Jake]

Horrible People who should return to their closets.

[GOP = Terrorists]

Maybe it was.  As early as 1935, black democrats were being elected to Congress - still well within the era of the dixiecrat influence.

Yeah but it was 1973 before a black Democrat was elected in the south...  And by then the civil rights coalition was in full effect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Eh it is their party now...

[TheresNoMoney]

I never understood why these people associate themselves with the Republican Party.

Exactly, why are they Republicans when most of the Republican party hates them and thinks they're going to hell?

Anyway, I voted freedom fighters for their sheer courage  in aligning themselves with the party of the Religious Right.

[J-Mann]

I never understood why these people associate themselves with the Republican Party.

Do gays not have freedom of association?  That's like saying that you don't understand why straight people would associate with the Democrat party.

Freedom fighters.  Their existence is the real test of whether or not the GOP can be a "big tent" party.

And it was explained in the first post why they associate with the Republican party: "Low taxes, limited government, strong defense, free markets, personal responsibility, and individual liberty."  They're perfectly free to choose the Republican party, and they are smart in doing so.  Choosing a fringe third party over one of the two primary parties would only make them appear further out of the mainstream.

I don't think they will change the religious wing of the GOP by themselves, but they're perfectly welcome in a party that probably needs to have a discussion of where their views are headed.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

One of their founders became a Democrat. The ones who haven't yet are a bit slow.


http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3692

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Horrible People who should return to their closets.

Yes, we know that's what you should do - but we're talking about LCR.  Don't change the subject.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

One of their founders became a Democrat. The ones who haven't yet are a bit slow.
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3692

Um.. that's the founder of one of its chapters, not the national organization itself.  Try reading next time.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Maybe it was.  As early as 1935, black democrats were being elected to Congress - still well within the era of the dixiecrat influence.

Yeah but it was 1973 before a black Democrat was elected in the south...  And by then the civil rights coalition was in full effect.

The point is that there was a time, long before your party "changed", where black Democrats were joining your party and becoming leaders in your party even as it would have been perceived to be a hostile environment for them.  The same can and will be said of gays in the GOP.

[Alcon]

Freedom fighters.

In fact, the organisation I probably most agree with in the entirety of politics - that is, their member base agrees with me most significantly, since the Log Cabins actually allow socially very conservative people as long as they support gay rights.

[A18]

Horrible People

[dazzleman]

Other

They are people looking out for their own perceived interests, like most people.  This doesn't make them either wonderful or horrible.

As to whether they are good for the Republican Party -- well, I don't think the party should belong exclusively to the religious right, so they are good to the extent that they help prevent that from occurring.

In any case, I think it's ridiculous that anybody would allow their political identification to be dictated solely by their sexuality.  To become a Democrat if you don't agree with the party's stances on taxes, foreign policy, crime, etc. simply because they have a "better" position on gay rights is giving too much weight to the gay issue, in my opinion.  Obviously though, that's for each person to evaluate on his own.  I just hate "identity" politics, and would rather see politics based on issues, not perceived identity.

[afleitch]

Freedom Fighters...though a bit misguided.

The fact that they stay put in a party where they often tend to be unwelcome is a gutsy decision, however they are not agenda setters and could probably have more influence if they were members of the Democratic Party. Having said that I do support them in principle and that they are truer to traditions of the Republican Party that the evangelist intelligent design nutters are.

[??????????]

Freedom Fighters...though a bit misguided.

The fact that they stay put in a party where they often tend to be unwelcome is a gutsy decision, however they are not agenda setters and could probably have more influence if they were members of the Democratic Party. Having said that I do support them in principle and that they are truer to traditions of the Republican Party that the evangelist intelligent design nutters are.

Intelligent design is no more a nuttier idea then Evolution.

[afleitch]

Freedom Fighters...though a bit misguided.

The fact that they stay put in a party where they often tend to be unwelcome is a gutsy decision, however they are not agenda setters and could probably have more influence if they were members of the Democratic Party. Having said that I do support them in principle and that they are truer to traditions of the Republican Party that the evangelist intelligent design nutters are.

Intelligent design is no more a nuttier idea then Evolution.

Let's not get into that debate, we don;t want this thread to go off on a tangent.

[dazzleman]

Freedom Fighters...though a bit misguided.

The fact that they stay put in a party where they often tend to be unwelcome is a gutsy decision, however they are not agenda setters and could probably have more influence if they were members of the Democratic Party. Having said that I do support them in principle and that they are truer to traditions of the Republican Party that the evangelist intelligent design nutters are.

I do think you are being overly harsh on the Republican Party, afleitch.  You are assuming it's nothing but gay-hating fundamentalists, but that is no different than assuming that Michael Moore represents the whole Democratic Party.

I would pay gay people the respect of thinking that they're really no different than the rest of us when it comes to the major issues like taxes, economics, crime, foreign policy, etc.  Therefore, if they find Republican views on these issues more compatible with their own views than those of the Democratic Party, there is no reason they should not be in the Republican Party.

[afleitch]

Freedom Fighters...though a bit misguided.

The fact that they stay put in a party where they often tend to be unwelcome is a gutsy decision, however they are not agenda setters and could probably have more influence if they were members of the Democratic Party. Having said that I do support them in principle and that they are truer to traditions of the Republican Party that the evangelist intelligent design nutters are.

I do think you are being overly harsh on the Republican Party, afleitch.  You are assuming it's nothing but gay-hating fundamentalists, but that is no different than assuming that Michael Moore represents the whole Democratic Party.

I would pay gay people the respect of thinking that they're really no different than the rest of us when it comes to the major issues like taxes, economics, crime, foreign policy, etc.  Therefore, if they find Republican views on these issues more compatible with their own views than those of the Democratic Party, there is no reason they should not be in the Republican Party.

Sorry, im afriad thats not what I was implying though I can see how it can be read that way. What I was implying if that Log Cabinet Republican 'X' was in the Democratic Party, they would have advanced further in their political careers 'IF' thats what they had wanted to achieve.

I certainly don't have a 'harsh' opinion of the Republican Party, I am probably one of the most sympathetic members with a red avatar when it comes to the Republicans. I just have an immense dislike for Bush and for the people he surrounds himself with.

[dazzleman]

Sorry, im afriad thats not what I was implying though I can see how it can be read that way. What I was implying if that Log Cabinet Republican 'X' was in the Democratic Party, they would have advanced further in their political careers 'IF' thats what they had wanted to achieve.

I certainly don't have a 'harsh' opinion of the Republican Party, I am probably one of the most sympathetic members with a red avatar when it comes to the Republicans. I just have an immense dislike for Bush and for the people he surrounds himself with.

I understand your point.  They probably could proceed further the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party, no doubt.  I imagine that puts gay people who holds views compatible with the Republicans in a difficult position, since they have to choose effectively between their careers and their principles on most issues.

[Yates]

I never understood why these people associate themselves with the Republican Party.

Exactly, why are they Republicans when most of the Republican party hates them and thinks they're going to hell?

Don, here is your answer.