RSS Feed Menu
Marc Ambinder reports:
Suddenly, it’s becoming less of a stigma for bigwigs to associate with gays in the Republican Party. Not only has former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman’s 9/22 fundraiser for gay marriage rights attracted numerous high-octane Republican donors and activists, but Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and Rep. Pete Sessions, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee will help the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group, raise money for its political action committee. (Part of this story was first reported last month.)
A glossy pamphlet advertising the Log Cabin Republicans’ national dinner at the Capitol Hill Club highlights an hour-long cocktail gathering with the two party committee chairs, both strong opponents of gay rights. But their attendance will add to the coffers of the LCR’s political action committee, which endorses Republicans who support gay rights.The LCR national dinner, which follows the private fundraiser, will include Sessions, Rep. Judy Biggert, Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. The Daily Caller’s Tucker Carlson will serve as Master of Ceremonies.The Log Cabin Republicans’ Mission Statement proclaims fidelity to conservative principles like a “strong national defense” and “limited government” before it discusses marriage rights and an “inclusive definition of the family.” But in practice, the group does not endorse candidates who oppose gay rights.
Click here to read more.
CentristNYer // Sep 2, 2010 at 7:41 am
Let’s let Fairy Hardaboutgaysex tell us all what’s wrong with this unholy alliance with the sodomites. I’m sure he’ll be happy to share some “wisdom” from his Catholic church. (Yes, that Catholic church.)
Oldskool // Sep 2, 2010 at 7:43 am
The religious right that Bush and Rove scared to the polls with the thought of gays getting married must be feeling lonlier than ever.
bubba11 // Sep 2, 2010 at 8:54 am
Will the “young guns” be attending?
Fairy Hardcastle // Sep 2, 2010 at 10:41 am
La la la la la . . . Whoa! Another article on this subject! Looks like FF is the fixated one.
The best conservative position is that the Federal government should have nothing to do with abortion, contraception, what is marriage or other similar cultural/moral issues. Hey, if they can get the people of CA to agree to sodomite marriage well then that’s the way our Republic works. Oh wait, CA already voted to amend the Constitution and now logcabinites and others (like those ACT UP types who stomped on that old lady’s poster in Palm Springs after having ripped it from her hands) want to force a Federal trump on CA? No. That’s not gonna fly. And in case you have been sleeping the past several months, the GOP is undergoing a radical change in the direction of morality. Wasn’t it Cornyn who supported Murkowski. Wasn’t it Cornyn who supported Crist even after he left the GOP and Spector? I hardly call Cornyn the future of the GOP thankfully. I know nothing about Sessions.
I am also not sure of the actual beliefs of an organization that supported McCain-Palin. If logcabiners believe that there should be no workplace discrimination based on sexual perversions (harrassment is another matter) that’s a good position. If they will only support a candidate who wants to force sodomite marriage on people that is not a good position and it is in no way a winning platform.
jakester // Sep 2, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Fairy Hardcastle will no doubt be delighted, for all his fundy noise, he has quite the poofter screen name.
DifferentFrumer // Sep 2, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Fairy believes:
“Hey, if they can get the people of CA to agree to sodomite marriage well then that’s the way our Republic works. ”
Shall we also ask Alabamans if they want to re-visit inter-racial marriage? By your logic, if the people vote for it, it’s a keeper. Fifty years ago the people of California voted in favor of Prop 14 by a 75% margin to enshrine housing discrimination into the state constitution. That’s the old “will of the people” logic you hold so dear. Should California re-visit that initiative?
CentristNYer // Sep 2, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Fairy: “If they will only support a candidate who wants to force sodomite marriage on people…”
Oh, really? Who’s forcing you to gay marry, Fairy?
Fairy Hardcastle // Sep 2, 2010 at 2:48 pm
DifferentFrumer, you don’t seem to realize that there already is a mechanism to have the unrealistic scenarios you paint come true on the Federal level. It’s called the amendment process. Nothing is sacrosanct because everything can be amended. In other words, the only thing that prevents the majority from deciding to up and impose its will on the rest is its appreciation for the natural law, not 9 robed figures, not a piece of paper signed 200 plus years ago. The real problem is not the scenarios you suggest, but that of an overweening judiciary that decides for all of what is moral, what is the meaning of life, etc. That is the outrageous thing.
jakester // Sep 2, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Fairy Boy does have a point, blacks and women won their civil rights based on previously passed Constitutional amendments that activists forced the courts to apply. So maybe we have to wait a generation but gays must triumph legislatively if this country is going to move in that direction. AS far as Natural Law goes, that concept is total bunk, it is just a ruse like ID is for Creationism
Fairy Hardcastle // Sep 2, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Jakester, yes and because everything can be explained by the truth of material evolution (or is that theory?) there is no good or evil, no choice, no objective morality, only a continuing series of reactions and actions with the more powerful mass prevailing in every instance. Why, even my typing this right now is but an illusion of free will. It is happening because of all the particles bouncing around. And my commenting on my typing is itself just particles bouncing around. And so on.
DifferentFrumer // Sep 2, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Uh, that amendment process has already established that marriage is a fundamental right. Again, over 134 years and 14 Supreme Court decisions, marriage has been upheld as a fundamental right. The court did not create “interracial marriage” in Loving v. Virginia. It upheld the right of Richard Loving to marry Mildred Jeter when Virginia established an arbitrary restriction on the right to marry.
When that matter was decided, Time Magazine published their nationwide poll to find out how America stood on the subject of of interracial marriage. The result: 80% opposed interracial marriage, 20% favored. Should blacks have waited until America was ready? That was in 1967 and Alabama took their state law off the books in the year 2000, 33 years AFTER Loving v. Virginia. Should America have waited for Alabama?
So, jakester, no. Fairy is just contriving B.S. based on his (often repeated) religious bigotry and trying to back it with junk legal history he gets as talking point from Lifesite, those professional religious bigot who write apologies for the Holy Roman Church. He has no point to make except that he’s a nutty Catholic dominionist who will lie for religious reasons and seeks to create hell on earth.
busboy33 // Sep 2, 2010 at 5:30 pm
remember when anti-gay was one of the bedrock tentpoles for the Right and the GOP?
Now that we can hate Mosques and towelheads, they just don’t seem to care.
And don’t forget . . . you should vote for these people because they have principles. They don’t just say whatever they think the audience wants to hear. They’re principled.
At least Fairy is committed in his (waaaaaaaay off base) beliefs.
TJ Parker // Sep 3, 2010 at 12:55 am
It is happening because of all the particles bouncing around. And my commenting on my typing is itself just particles bouncing around. And so on.
Poor sad smug Hairy Turdcastle doesn’t know what to do! But surely if Quantum Mechanics were put to a vote, the majority would reject it in favor of cherubim and seraphim and whatever else promised an easy vision of Forever.
… because everything can be explained by the truth of material evolution (or is that theory?) there is no good or evil, no choice, no objective morality, only a continuing series of reactions and actions with the more powerful mass prevailing in every instance.
Indeed, where there is no meaning, she will give us meaning. And where there is no choice, she will give us choice. Because long long ago, before computers and science and medicine and math, there were men who knew and recorded that meaning, that truth, even though they themselves didn’t yet know how to wipe their own butts.