Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/

I think presidential policy on LGBTQ issues is tangential to this thread, and further discussion of this specific aspect probably belongs in Dead Horses.

Thank you for your cooperation.

/hosting

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
One of the issues is the percentage of the US voting population which is LGBT (not necessarily openly self-declared LGBT). The published stats I've seen suggest that those openly declared amount to less than 5% of the population as a a whole, and certainly in 2012 they voted predominantly for Obama. Given social changes, I suspect that the numbers openly declaring are increasing and it seems likely that they will follow the 2012 pattern.

<snip>

Are there any recent voting demographics out there? I haven't been able to find any.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Using Cheney as an example, would he vote Democrat - or abstain? Would he regard a candidate's attitude to LGBT social acceptability and civil rights as a vote-switcher?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
I don't know. [Cheney] spoke out, when he could've remained silent. IIRC, he has another daughter who's actively Republican and anti-gay, so there's family discomfort. Then again, no one else will be in the voting booth with him...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, here's a link.

But I don't think the Donald is really playing for the LGBT vote, simply making noises which may keep pro-gay Republicans in the GOP voting lobbies.

I would think this represents the very large majority view amongst US LGBT citizens.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

For dark comedy value you can watch Anderson Cooper grill Florida Attorney-General Pam Bondi on her claim that same-sex marriage is harmful to Floridians and her sudden claim to be an ally and supporter of the LGBTQ community.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
For dark comedy value you can watch Anderson Cooper grill Florida Attorney-General Pam Bondi on her claim that same-sex marriage is harmful to Floridians and her sudden claim to be an ally and supporter of the LGBTQ community.

---

Very good. It did make me smile, but mostly I admired Anderson Cooper's polite but persistent uncovering of what Pam Bondi, in retrospect, would rather not have been uncovered.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Very good. It did make me smile, but mostly I admired Anderson Cooper's polite but persistent uncovering of what Pam Bondi, in retrospect, would rather not have been uncovered.

---

Posted                      

• The interview was aired live so there was no editing Bondi's remarks. The version on the website (which Cooper has no control over) was shortened for time, but that the full interview is now available online again.
• Contrary to her later claim, Bondi did not indicate in advance that she wanted to talk about online charity scams related to the Orlando shooting
• That Cooper wasn't "angry" at Bondi, just respectfully asking questions about her past statements, which were at considerable variance with her currently-expressed sentiments

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Bondi's behaviour is flaky. Fox News is flaky at best. They deserve one another. What I guess we have to live with is the credibility of the regular Fox News audience, who have been conditioned to believe what they want to hear. "All lies and jests, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Dear Friend,

There’s no way to sugar-coat this: I’m mad as hell — and I know you are, too.

Moments ago, the Republican Party passed the most anti-LGBT Platform in the Party’s 162-year history.

Opposition to marriage equality, nonsense about bathrooms, an endorsement of the debunked psychological practice of “pray the gay away” — it’s all in there.

<snip>

BUT … now is not the time to sit around feeling sorry for ourselves. Log Cabin Republicans has been officially credentialed for the Republican National Convention, and when it convenes in Cleveland in a mere 6 days’ time I want to be able to take a stand, but we’re going to need your support to do it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
So I came across this fundraising letter from the Log Cabin Republicans recently.

quote:

---

Dear Friend,

There’s no way to sugar-coat this: I’m mad as hell — and I know you are, too.

Moments ago, the Republican Party passed the most anti-LGBT Platform in the Party’s 162-year history.

Opposition to marriage equality, nonsense about bathrooms, an endorsement of the debunked psychological practice of “pray the gay away” — it’s all in there.

<snip>

BUT … now is not the time to sit around feeling sorry for ourselves. Log Cabin Republicans has been officially credentialed for the Republican National Convention, and when it convenes in Cleveland in a mere 6 days’ time I want to be able to take a stand, but we’re going to need your support to do it.

---

Emphasis in the original. I'm not sure how effective this message of "give us money to protest this horrible thing we were completely unable to stop" is going to be as a fundraising pitch. At what point are we forced to conclude that working from within to make the Republican Party more tolerant of homosexuals (let alone any of the other LGBTQ letters) has been an abject failure. Either the GOP simply won't change on this subject, or the LCR are not capable of bringing about that change.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
This could easily be viewed both ways. I am sure from the LCRs' point of view, the intended message was something along the lines of "Real change is possible in the GOP on the issue of LGBTQ rights, but because of all you misers out there, we did not have the basic financial resources necessary to do what we needed to do. Now look what you have wrought! Once you have gotten over your guilt and shame for abandoning your LGBTQ brethren in their time of need, show some proper contrition, and give us money, lest your conscience haunt you forevermore."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
This could easily be viewed both ways. I am sure from the LCRs' point of view, the intended message was something along the lines of "Real change is possible in the GOP on the issue of LGBTQ rights, but because of all you misers out there, we did not have the basic financial resources necessary to do what we needed to do. Now look what you have wrought! Once you have gotten over your guilt and shame for abandoning your LGBTQ brethren in their time of need, show some proper contrition, and give us money, lest your conscience haunt you forevermore."

---

The Log Cabin Republicans were founded in 1977. Think about how much has been achieved by gay rights activists working outside the Republican Party since 1977. Now consider how much the Republican Party hasn't changed on this issue since 1977. At some point the phrase "lost cause" has come in to play. If "Real change is possible in the GOP on the issue of LGBTQ rights", then at some point that has to be demonstrated rather than hypothesized.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
I am not sure gay rights activists accomplished much of anything during that period via politics. I cannot think of any major accomplishments by the LGBTQ community through the vehicle of the Democratic Party either.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Their continuing existence in the GOP screams out loudly to all with ears to hear, "We don't give a fuck about our own best interests as LGBT+ people; we just believe in tax cuts for the rich, and our own best social interests be damned."

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
I am not sure gay rights activists accomplished much of anything during that period via politics. I cannot think of any major accomplishments by the LGBTQ community through the vehicle of the Democratic Party either. Most of the substantive gains were made through the courts and through the swaying of popular sentiment outside of the political system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
I think you may be holding the LCRs to unrealistic standards as a political interest group, and possibly overlooking what the negative effects would have been in the alternative scenario where they had not made such efforts during this period. Telling the LCRs that they should just give up all hope and wash their hands of the Republican Party would, in my opinion, be entirely unproductive both to their cause and to the national discourse in general.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Who the fuck are you to tell someone else how he should make that choice? Who the fuck are you to try to force LGBT+ people to be single-issue voters.

Gay people don't owe some special duty to other gay people. They have the same duty as everyone else - to vote to bring about what they consider to be the best achievable result.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Who the fuck are you to tell someone else how he should make that choice? Who the fuck are you to try to force LGBT+ people to be single-issue voters.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Gay people don't owe some special duty to other gay people. They have the same duty as everyone else - to vote to bring about what they consider to be the best achievable result.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Gay people don't owe some special duty to other gay people. They have the same duty as everyone else - to vote to bring about what they consider to be the best achievable result.

---

I disagree. Log Cabin Republicans are a special interest group and their special interest is LGBT people. Though they qualify that with conservative. That is stupid. Rights for LGBT do not recognise left or right.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
And, I'm guessing, a lot of them probably grew up around conservative politics, agreed with the ideas, realized they were LGBT+, and felt they shouldn't have to choose between their politics and sexuality. LCR gives them a place where they can have both. Kind of like finding an affirming church.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
I am not sure gay rights activists accomplished much of anything during that period via politics. I cannot think of any major accomplishments by the LGBTQ community through the vehicle of the Democratic Party either. Most of the substantive gains were made through the courts and through the swaying of popular sentiment outside of the political system.

---

Just to be clear, "that period" is 1977 through the present day. I'm a bit baffled by your assertion that there have been no legislative changes relating to gay rights since then. For reference, in 1980 homosexuality was a crime in 28 states plus the District of Columbia. Going from that to 0 states (not all of which was achieved "through the courts") seems like a pretty big accomplishment, but I await your explanation as to why it wasn't.

In a democracy, swaying "popular sentiment" isn't "outside of the political system", it is the political system.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
I think you may be holding the LCRs to unrealistic standards as a political interest group, and possibly overlooking what the negative effects would have been in the alternative scenario where they had not made such efforts during this period. Telling the LCRs that they should just give up all hope and wash their hands of the Republican Party would, in my opinion, be entirely unproductive both to their cause and to the national discourse in general.

---

Why? Given that their efforts to date have been either "entirely unproductive" or possibly counterproductive (in their own words "the Republican Party passed the most anti-LGBT Platform in the Party’s 162-year history", which would indicate the GOP is getting worse on the issues the LCR claim to care about), why would "wash[ing] their hands of the Republican Party" be expected to produce worse results than the result that they're getting now?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Gay people don't owe some special duty to other gay people. They have the same duty as everyone else - to vote to bring about what they consider to be the best achievable result.

---

I disagree. Log Cabin Republicans are a special interest group and their special interest is LGBT people.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
I am not sure gay rights activists accomplished much of anything during that period via politics. I cannot think of any major accomplishments by the LGBTQ community through the vehicle of the Democratic Party either. Most of the substantive gains were made through the courts and through the swaying of popular sentiment outside of the political system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
I never asserted, “there have been no legislative changes relating to gay rights” since 1977.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
What I said was that I was not aware of any major accomplishments in terms of gay rights that can be said to have been directly resultant from the purposeful efforts of gay-rights activists.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
I am not sure gay rights activists accomplished much of anything during that period via politics. I cannot think of any major accomplishments by the LGBTQ community through the vehicle of the Democratic Party either. Most of the substantive gains were made through the courts and through the swaying of popular sentiment outside of the political system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
I never asserted, “there have been no legislative changes relating to gay rights” since 1977.

---

That's true. You claimed there were no accomplishments "via politics" for gay rights since 1977, which would include both legislative changes and executive actions. So the lifting of ban on homosexuals serving in the U.S. armed forces, which was achieved largely through executive actions, would also count as a non-accomplishment in your estimation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
What I said was that I was not aware of any major accomplishments in terms of gay rights that can be said to have been directly resultant from the purposeful efforts of gay-rights activists.

---

I feel a great disturbance in the Force™, as if millions of goal posts suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly shifted! We've gone from "gay rights activists never accomplished much of anything" to "there are no major accomplishments in terms of gay rights that can be said to have been directly resultant from the purposeful efforts of gay-rights activists."

Please define your new qualifiers. What counts as a "major" accomplishment, as opposed to an ordinary one? And why are ordinary accomplishments irrelevant? Does lobbying government count as a "purposeful effort"? How about serving in government? If the lobbying is successful does that make the ensuing action "directly resultant", or is some other factor necessary?

To take one example, Congressman Barney Frank made sure the 1990 Immigration Act dropped the language from previous incarnations of the law that had excluded anyone from immigrating to the United States if they had a "sexual deviance affliction". Does Frank count as a "gay-rights activist"? He was certainly active in promoting gay rights. His work on the 1990 Immigration Act was "purposeful", and the striking of the clause in question was "directly resultant" of his efforts. As to whether ending the bar on immigration by open homosexuals counts as a "major" accomplishment can only be determined by what criteria you consider "major". That one I'll leave to you.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's true. You claimed there were no accomplishments "via politics" for gay rights since 1977, which would include both legislative changes and executive actions. So the lifting of ban on homosexuals serving in the U.S. armed forces, which was achieved largely through executive actions, would also count as a non-accomplishment in your estimation.

---

No, it was not a political accomplishment in my estimation. The repeal of DADT was primarily the result of two factors: . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
. . . First, the pressure created by unfavorable judicial decisions, including, ironically given this discussion, one filed by the LCRs in 2010. . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
Second, the shift in popular sentiment against DADT, combined with the shifting views of the military heads on the issue, gave President Obama political cover to repeal DADT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
I already provided examples of how I define a “major” accomplishment in my previous post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
As for Rep. Frank, I would say that his advocacy was a result of his own sexual orientation, rather than casually related to the work of gay-rights activists who pushed him to act in a way he would not otherwise have done.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not ironic in the slightest. If we were to mention every foolish reason for people to vote Republican on every related thread, there would be no room to discuss anything else.
So sticking to each group as pertains to the thread is simple courtesy and efficiency.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not ironic in the slightest. If we were to mention every foolish reason for people to vote Republican on every related thread, there would be no room to discuss anything else.
So sticking to each group as pertains to the thread is simple courtesy and efficiency.

---

You're missing the point. You can't simultaneously tell poor people who want to be mean to LGBT people that they're idiots for voting against their financial interest, and gay people who want fiscal conservatism that they're idiots for voting against their social interest.

---

quote:

---

If you're a gay fiscal conservative, or a God'n'guns'n'homophobia socialist, there's no party for you.

---

quote:

---

So you have to make a choice. The Log Cabin Republicans presumably think that there's more chance of persuading the Republican party to adopt their views on gay rights than there is of persuading the Democratic party to adopt their views on economics.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
But if you had to bet your life savings on Roe getting overturned by the SCOTUS and abortion being handed back to the states, OR a Human Life Amendment passing through congress and abortion being first-degree murder coast-to-coast, what would you bet?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
[x-posted from the other Presidential Election thread]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
But if you had to bet your life savings on Roe getting overturned by the SCOTUS and abortion being handed back to the states, OR a Human Life Amendment passing through congress and abortion being first-degree murder coast-to-coast, what would you bet?

---

Neither. If I were wagering on such things I'd bet on the Supreme Court overturning Roe using the argument that a fetus is a person under the Fourteenth Amendment, essentially getting the result of a human life amendment (abortion is first degree murder in all fifty states) without the difficulties involved in actually amending the U.S. Constitution. This argument is popular among more constitutionally-minded abortion opponents. Assuming that overturning Roe would simply re-instate the pre-Roe legal regime seems to involve a lot of underlying assumptions, most of them unwarranted.

The whole "overturning Roe would just throw abortion back to the states" is a prevarication similar to other appeals to smaller government. It's a distraction to reassure the public that the agenda being pursued won't really effect them, just those other people.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
And, again. how much money would you be willing to bet on the prediction that there will be a bloc of at least five judges on the SCOTUS willing to endorse a Fourteenth Amendment argument in favour of fetal personhood, any time in, let's say, the next twenty years?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

That depends entirely on the electoral successes of the Republican party, doesn't it? I'd expect any nominee put forward by President Trump to be a reliable vote along those lines. Scalia's replacement will almost certainly be picked by the winner of the November election. A bloc of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, [Scalia's replacement], plus one other would provide the necessary voting bloc.

---