the gay republican

[CptStern]

no it's not a confessional it's a new movie that made it's debut in cannes this week

here's a sypnosis:

"This informative and quick-moving doc explores the seemingly oxymoronic concept of gay conservatives. Don't laugh. More than a million gays and lesbians voted for Bush in 2000.

Focusing on four members of the Log Cabin, a gay Republican group, Wash Westmoreland tracks the last few tumultuous years, with special emphasis on Bush's 2004 stand on gay marriage to woo the religious right.

Westmoreland doesn't examine what made the queers conservatives in the first place. Most are white, male and wealthy, so you can assume it's the fiscal policies. He gets a few cheap laughs at two of his more ridiculous subjects: one collects Reagan memorabilia, the other, a Palm Beach hairdresser, is an ass-kissing idiot.

But you see genuine conflict in the lives of the film's other subjects, a lawyer who wants to marry her Democrat partner of seven years, and Steve May , the first openly gay member of Arizona's state legislature, who makes a life-changing decision. "

source


the movie tackles being a repulican yet living a lifestyle that's contrary to repulican ideology. I guess the surprising bit of info about this movie is:

"Don't laugh. More than a million gays and lesbians voted for Bush in 2000."


my point is: is it possible to believe in a set of political ideologies even though they conflict with some of your own?

 

[Tr0n]

Well it's possible...that's politics.

Like say me for instance...I'm totally against weed because of my beliefs (not religious beliefs), but I believe in making it legal due to I think it would benefit america.

Political ideologies is different from what you believe and your lifestyle.It's...well...politics.

 

[jondy]

my point is: is it possible to believe in a set of political ideologies even though they conflict with some of your own?

When you're voting in a two party system, you have to cram all your opinions into one of two boxes.

 

[CptStern]

yes but it doesnt go against your lifestyle ...if that was the case then the analogy would be more like: "I smoke weed daily for medicinal reasons, but I think they shouldnt be made legal for medicinal purposes"

 

[jondy]

yes but it doesnt go against your lifestyle ...if that was the case then the analogy would be more like: "I smoke weed daily for medicinal reasons, but I think they shouldnt be made legal for medicinal purposes"

My point is, if you agree enough on some issues, or hate the other side enough, there's only one place to put your vote. But you're right. It's weird that such a big lifestyle choice could possibly be overcome when ticking that ballot

 

[kirovman]

Maybe these gays are against gay marriage themselves?

 

[CptStern]

I dont see how any gay person could be against equality ..actually I cant see how any body could be against equality ...but I'm a hippy-tree-hugger-commie ..so what the hell do I know?

 

[No Limit]

This is nothing new; people vote against their interests all the time. Hence why so many middle class people voted for Bush because he knew how to whore the bible better. Or how so many unemployed rednecks voted for Bush because they agree with the '**** foreigners' policy and are too lazy to look at anything else.

A gay republican is mind gobbling but it happens, Bush got 24% of the gay/lesbian vote this time around:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

 

[CptStern]

I'd like to personally interview those 24% ..mostly to say to them: "what the hell were you thinking?"

 

[The Monkey]

When you're voting in a two party system, you have to cram all your opinions into one of two boxes.

http://www.cpusa.org/

How many votes did they get in the 2004 election? 7? 8?

 

[ComradeBadger]

People mainly vote for financial reasons, so I'm not suprised..

 

[The Monkey]

People mainly vote for financial reasons, so I'm not suprised..

Not in the US. At least it seems not.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Nope, it's true, when it comes down to it, people will vote for the policies they think will help them keep food on the table.

The politics of bread.

 

[CptStern]

yes but often if come down to voting for the guy that's least offensive ..in the last federal election I voted for the liberal party mostly because I didnt want the conservative party in office ..I have lots of problems with the liberal party but they seem safe compared to the conservative party. If I was american I would have voted for kerry, not because I supported him (democrats are slightly less conservative than republicans) but because I didnt want bush back in office

 

[ComradeBadger]

Indeed, often these days, its who you hate the least

The problem is, politcal parties these days, especially in America, only preach to the converted.. the irony is, Bush started reaching a little outside... and therefore got in for a second term.

The people who voted for Bush weren't all hardline conservatives.

 

[el Chi]

Yeah I'm not AMAZED by this. Maybe these gay Republicans aren't opposed to gay marriage (as Stern said; why would they be?) but maybe they're also realistic and don't see it happening under the Democrats either. Thus, they vote for the other policies they believe in.
There are many gay Conservatives in this country (oooh the scandal!) and they wouldn't allow gay marriages come Hell or high water.

 

[No Limit]

Nope, it's true, when it comes down to it, people will vote for the policies they think will help them keep food on the table.

The politics of bread.

This is not true, if it was the case democrats would rule this country. People here are losing jobs by the thousands, wages are going down and the government continues to go wild with credit. Under Clinton we had an amazing economy (of course blind republicans will tell you all 8 years of good economy was due to past republican presidents). People in this country vote like a bunch of idiots on both sides of the political spectrum, democrat or republican. Kerry got most of his votes from the anti-war people and Bush got most of his votes from fear or from the bible thumping extremists (large part of this country).

 

[superjuanchango]

Believe it or not I have a friend that falls under this title. He did, however, vote Kerry in 2004 I believe. He donned a KERRY EDWARDS sticker for a day or two on his car, but that may have been an act.

 

[Apos]

I think far weirder are the (reportedly) gay Republicans who are so anti-gay in their political careers. There is that anti-gay mayor who was caught on gay websites and propositioning a sting of young boys. There are numerous gay staffers in Washington that work for anti-gay Republican politicians. Hell, the chair of the RNC, Ken Melhman, is almost certainly gay (people will admit it in private, but deny it in public). Virginia, which is so conservative that just to screw gay people they tried to make laws against ANY legal contract between two same sex people, has a Republican candidate for governor that sounds like the blonde guy from Queer Eye is about as effeminate as they come and who's family comes off as way too much of a political accessory to fill out his resume than a sexual part of his life. It's just getting too weird. It's like there's a gay plot to inflitrate the Republican party and at the same time denounce gays.

I think the answer to all this is that only closested gay men worry about homosexuals as much as many Republicans seem to do. Only if you live in deep fear of your own homosexual feelings could you possibly give a rat's ass about what other homosexuals do. Myself, not having any homosexual feelings I've ever encountered (and I'd say so if I had them, it wouldn't embarrass or worry me in the least), I don't see the obsession. It's crazy. I have more than enough time worrying about women than I do to worry about gay men.

 

[falconwind]

I think it's generally established that to have ANY political career in the United States, you have to be either straight, or in the closet with a wife.
I've never heard of any successful politician that said at the beginning of his campaign "i'm gay".

As for gay republicans, i dont really get them. I suppose that, excluding their gay sexual preference, they just like the republican ideals better, despite the fact that Bush's right-wing evangelical supporters are in direct opposition to the gay republicans. (No surprise that they were banned from the Republican Convention).

 

[CptStern]

I think it's generally established that to have ANY political career in the United States, you have to be either straight, or in the closet with a wife.
I've never heard of any successful politician that said at the beginning of his campaign "i'm gay".

heh, former BC MP, Svend Robinson had a pretty successful career

 

[Gray Fox]

As for gay republicans, i dont really get them. I suppose that, excluding their gay sexual preference, they just like the republican ideals better, despite the fact that Bush's right-wing evangelical supporters are in direct opposition to the gay republicans. (No surprise that they were banned from the Republican Convention).

wait who were banned, the gays or the fundies.