This is the part where I have to get blunt.
Not including the Westboro Baptist gang and their sadly misguided ilk, who I’m fairly certain wouldn’t be reading my blog anyway, is there anyone in the U.S. today who doesn’t know and love at least one gay person — friend, colleague, parent, child, cousin, neighbor? Do you?
Please hold that person close in your heart and mind as you read this short essay.
All of the current Republican candidates — and to be clear, that’s Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul — have stated categorically that they will turn back the clock on human and civil rights for gay people. They will to varying degrees reinstate DADT, abolish marriage equality through a Constitutional Amendment, delegitimize gay people as a minority class, possibly even make it illegal to be gay. In short, they will rebuild the proverbial closet and shove us all back in.
If you are thinking, even hypothetically, of voting for any of those candidates, please consider what doing so will mean to the life of that person you say you love. (Keep picturing them.)
A vote for any of the above-listed Republicans is a vote against your loved one. Yes it is. Don’t tell me that you’re a fiscal conservative and this is a tax thing. Don’t tell me that you’re interested in welfare reform. Don’t tell me that you want a stronger military. Don’t tell me your religion doesn’t like it. Don’t tell me that legal agreements will take care of it. Don’t tell me that civil unions should be good enough. (And don’t tell me Ron Paul doesn’t care and thinks the states should handle it.)
Don’t tell me any of those things unless you’re prepared to explain to your loved one that you are a superior human being to them.
Look your loved one in the eye and tell them that your excuses are more important than their ability to marry (like you), create a home and a family (like you), adopt children (like you), retain custody (like you), teach school (like you), visit their partner in the hospital (like you), make medical treatment decisions for their partner (like you), be protected from harassment and discrimination (like you), not be fired for being who they are (like you), not be deported (like you), receive Social Security and other government benefits (like you), file much lower joint taxes (like you), pass their estate on tax-free (like you), transfer property without paying tax (like you), or any one of 1,138 legal benefits and protections that you have and that they do not have.
Can you look them in the eye and tell them that?
There is simply no excuse to vote Republican today. Love thy gay neighbor. Pass it on.
____________________________________________
P.S. If you’re having trouble understanding why this matters so much, try replacing the word gay throughout the essay with black, hispanic, asian, handicapped, left-handed, elderly, brown-eyed, short, or some other immutable characteristic. Would you stand for wholesale discrimination against them?
#1 by Amanda Catron on January 23, 2012 - 11:43 am
I have always wondered how people can justify voting Republican and then in the next breath say “I have gay friends.” It is sad that they do not see the connection or disconnection… so to speak.
#2 by Carol Wyatt on January 23, 2012 - 12:39 pm
After watching the rabid behavior of the audience in the Repub debates, why would ANYONE want to affiliate with that group of hateful, ignorant, bigoted jerks?????
#3 by Suzanne Labry on January 23, 2012 - 12:48 pm
BRAVO, Alice! Of course you know you are preaching to the choir here, but your deftly worded call to all of us to consider our choices carefully made me proud that I know you and love you.
#4 by Cindy Ridgway on January 23, 2012 - 3:55 pm
voting repug also means hating your female nieghbor! these Men hate women as well…and the women line up for it! Newt’s 3 wives…I look at these guys and wonder how the heck the women keep voting for THEM!!!!
#5 by Mary lee, Jakarta, Indonesia on January 23, 2012 - 4:48 pm
We started watching, “mr. Smith goes to Washington” last night with James Stewart. Gone are the days where politicians went to Washington to actually serve their country. these guys are serving themselves. Sad.
#6 by Winter Huff on January 23, 2012 - 9:04 pm
Sing on. I certainly don’t understand how anyone could vote for Newt and hide behind a “values voter” label. Not my values, certainly. Scary that pandering for votes means playing to the lowest common denominator. And I mean that literally and figuratively . . .
#7 by Tanya Dodd-Hise on January 24, 2012 - 8:43 am
Well said Alice! I have actually lost sleep over these idiot candidates, thinking about each of their positions regarding myself, my wife, our family, and the tons of wonderful people who we call friends and family. It scares and disgusts me all at once. So glad to read this…preach it
#8 by therighter on January 24, 2012 - 8:56 am
Urging people to ignore the much bigger picture and take into consideration this misguided far cry for help is sad. No one is going to make being gay illegal or shove you back in the closet. Certain people (including myself) believe that Marriage is between a man and a woman, and guess what…..I dont hate gays. I do disagree with the idea of homosexuality and gay rights( whatever those are) Be gay and be happy people judge so if you dont want to be judged keeo your sexual preference to yourself.
#9 by therighter on January 24, 2012 - 8:59 am
Oh and im not voting Republican.
#10 by Chuck on January 24, 2012 - 9:20 am
Hmm, an interesting thought piece. I hate to say this, but I and my immediate family are FAR more important to me than an unnamed “loved one”. I am not saying that this topic is unimportant(especially to this person/group/etc.) However, it is far less important to me and my clearly defined sense of self interest.
If it were a situation I where I felt it wouldn’t significantly harm/impede etc I would certainly attempt to “go the extra mile” as it were on this issue.
I do not appreciate the all or nothing platform of either side and quite frankly this plea of do it my way or else is a huge turnoff. Look down ticket and realize that for some/many other issues are more important.
I do certainly agree with equal standing/rights. We do live in a Democratic Republic and you don’t always get what you want however. An all or nothing approach is not the way to go.
#11 by Alice Melott on January 24, 2012 - 9:21 am
Chuck — Maybe if you replaced the word “gay” in the essay with “black,” “hispanic,” “asian,” “handicapped,” “elderly,” “left-handed,” “brown-eyed,” “short,” or some other immutable characteristic it would help you understand.
#12 by Chuck on January 24, 2012 - 9:22 am
I absolutely understand where you are coming from. And while I feel that many of the activists on both sides are disingenuous I also feel a single individual(even as Pres) will have far less effect on this issue than down ticket races as well as state/local races.
However, the same can not be said for many/most other items. Basically what is being asked of me is to ignore my own self interest in order to help “the greater good”. And when that plea isn’t enough, then by gum let the emotional bludgeoning begin.
You see this single issue as eclipsing all others where I view that as short sited. We disagree in method and implementation if not in overall goals.
To recap my basic views
1. Side A says marriage is a religious institution and should be protected
2. Side B wants equal rights and standing under the law
3. The Supreme Court has ruled a separation of church and state(not really, but it is widely accepted)
Therefore —> Everyone gets Civil Union licenses and then can get “Married” or not if they choose to. And if they so choose they can ignore or call heretic or whatever to those Married by other religions. Rights are equal including the freedom of religion(and religious bigotry)
—Sadly it is “almost” what Bush proposed. And both sides reviled him for it. It meets both sides demands, but neither want it in an effort to crush the dissenting view.
However, that won’t happen with ANY candidate currently in office or running for it. As such, I am looking to see who will best run this country for all(or at least most….). Bah, I would drone on more, but have to go to work now.
#13 by Alice Melott on January 24, 2012 - 9:22 am
I think that what you’re calling a Civil Union IS what we call marriage today — that is, that two people can stand before a judge or authorized clerk with a license and “get married.” That is the part that is currently illegal in most states for gay people. That’s what needs to be federally legalized because it’s just plain unwieldy to think we can have 50 sets of rules for a subset of society. And I think asking straight people to change what they call civil marriage is just an unnecessary layer — plus it ain’t gonna happen. As for religious ceremonies — I’m not saying a word about those. That’s somebody else’s headache.
#14 by DC on January 30, 2012 - 12:26 pm
I was actually having this conversation with my Mom last night. She is a Christian, and has a gay son (myself). My parents are extremely supportive of me, but my Mom still has an opinion of “marriage is between a man and woman.” Although it does hurt me to hear her say that, I can’t change the say she feels, only offer up another solution. When I mentioned basically what Chuck said above (everybody get’s the same license legally, i.e. Civil Union licenses) and then you can call it marriage or whatever you want, she was actually on board with that. Everyone is STILL equal. I feel like people (on both sides) are so hard-pressed to get their way, there is no room for compromise. Would I rather just have same-sex unions called marriage by the government, sure, but I don’t know that that is going to happen anytime soon. Rights that are being denied should be the real issue here, so why not try and meet in the middle?
#15 by Rod on January 24, 2012 - 9:23 am
I’m all for equality, but if I dont vote republican then that means I’m abstaining or voting for BHO, and I just can’t get there.
#16 by Rod on January 24, 2012 - 9:23 am
Alice, any powers not explicitly given in the constitution are the purview of the states. Checks and balances can be unwieldy, but that’s kind of the point.
#17 by Alice Melott on January 24, 2012 - 9:24 am
Obviously that didn’t work for women’s voting right or the civil rights act. And it won’t work for us either.
#18 by Rod on January 24, 2012 - 9:24 am
You’re going to need nothing short of an amendment.
#19 by Alice Melott on January 24, 2012 - 9:24 am
Works for me. ;c)
#20 by MB on January 24, 2012 - 9:25 am
I actually agree, that an amendment might be the only way … and I also agree … let’s do it! Through the years, as we have become more enlightened about the issue of equality, the constitution has been appropriately amended to reflect our growth in understanding–women’s rights, civil rights related to race … Sadly, even an amendment doesn’t force individuals to “do” or “believe” differently (there are still pockets of people who choose to be bigoted and segregationist, and frankly, those feelings are their right, too, whether I believe it to be morally right or wrong, so long as no one comes to harm) but at least the law then protects the oppressed. I find it interesting and … disturbing … that any issue could be more important to anyone than assuring that our country is truly a land of equality under the law. Can we, as a nation, afford to take steps backward on issues of equality?
#21 by Jason on January 24, 2012 - 10:09 am
Interesting article unfortunately a large portion of it is incorrect.
#22 by Alice Melott on January 24, 2012 - 10:09 am
Hi Jason — I wrote the piece. Please tell me specifically what I got wrong because I would never intentionally publish something false. Thanks!
#23 by Jason on January 24, 2012 - 10:11 am
Who is going to make it illegal to be gay?
When did Ron Paul say he would reinstitute DADT?
When did RP say he would amend the Constitution as it pertains to marriage equity?
As for delegitimize gay people as a minority class- gay right advocates have pushed for a long time to protect the rights of gay and homosexuals by giving them minority protection.
Am I way off base on all of these?
Just one other comment on this topic–even as a straight white dude I feel that gay rights are a very important topic but I do not feel that they trump the need for a better economy, bringing our troops home safely or defending the rights of ALL Americans(which will be taken away unless the NDAA is repealed)
#24 by Alice Melott on January 24, 2012 - 10:12 am
Jason — To be clear, when you say I got it wrong, what you’re really wanting to do is defend Ron Paul, is that right? Because I deliberately said “to varying degrees” and “possibly” to keep from going down the slippery slope of degrees of particulars.
I understand that Paul says at one time that this should be a non-issue, then he says it’s a states’ rights issue, then he climbs on the fundamentalist bandwagon which takes us back to Santorum. Best case scenario, he says what we do at home is nobody’s business and shouldn’t be legislated, but I just fundamentally disagree with that particular libertarian perspective. There are and always will be people in this world who need help and protection – a little or a lot, for the long-term or the short-term – and that’s why we have government and rules. Survival of the fittest is for cavemen and anarchists (and from the looks of it, there were a bunch of those at some of the debates cheering about people dying without health care).
As for the “possibility” of making it illegal to be gay, the anti-sodomy laws were only scrubbed from the Texas books in 2003. Here’s what Rick Santorum says about that: “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. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.”
By comparing homosexuality to bestiality, and saying that we don’t have the right to have consensual sex, he’s also saying we don’t have the right to privacy. In short, he sounds a lot like someone who, given his druthers, might make homosexuality illegal.
I don’t think gay rights or marriage equality and the economy (which is improving) are mutually exclusive. But since as a “straight, white, dude,” you do, I have to ask you if that’s what you would have said to Black Americans during the Civil Rights Movement? How about Asian Americans during the WWII internments? Women marching for the vote? As I wrote in the piece, substitute any immutable characteristic for “gay,” and tell me it doesn’t trump the economy. Better yet, tell your gay child…
So, yes, we need our rights legislated and we need the heterosexual majority to step up and speak out for us (and vote) because no minority ever won equality without the support of the majority. That would be you.
Thanks for thinking it through. ;c)
#25 by EH on January 24, 2012 - 10:13 am
It is a part of the Texas Republican platform that I should not be allowed to have custody of my daughter (p13). For me, that trumps everything. I don’t know anyone who could vote for a party that wanted to take away their child. And unfortunately, a Republican vote is a vote saying that’s okay. The sad thing is that many who call themselves “Republican” have never read the platform.
#26 by Stormy on January 24, 2012 - 10:15 am
It is a powerful essay. With a few flaws. All but one of the Republican candiates has a very strong religious backing. Ron Paul doesn’t care. And he doesn’t think the federal should spend time or energy defining simple stuff like “everyone is equal.”
#27 by Alice Melott on January 24, 2012 - 10:15 am
Wow, Stormy! The day “everyone is equal” is “simple” is probably the last day of the world. ;c)
#28 by Jason on January 24, 2012 - 10:17 am
Ok I did not know that a gay couple would be at risk of having their child taken away– so yes that would trump every other topic as well as my own self preservation if someone tried to take my child from me. I actually stand corrected today– who woulda thought??
Oh and than you Alice and EH for the discussion
#29 by Alice Melott on January 24, 2012 - 10:17 am
Thank YOU, Jason! Pass it on!
#30 by Wade on January 24, 2012 - 10:38 am
So Jason, can we count on you to spread the gay rights equality message?
#31 by Vicky Gerdes on January 24, 2012 - 2:20 pm
I support your comments.
#32 by Alice Melott on January 25, 2012 - 6:52 am
Note: I welcome and encourage civil dialogue and debate, as evidenced by the 30-odd comments above. I will not, however, tolerate flamers and haters. If you submit a nasty comment that does not advance the conversation, you will be banned without further notice from ever posting on my site. Fair warning.
#33 by Russell on January 25, 2012 - 8:35 am
I’m not hating but say there was a gay person that votes Republican. Are you going to say they are not gay?
#34 by Alice Melott on January 25, 2012 - 8:36 am
Lol – no, Russell. But they are an enigma. Always have been. And there are fewer and fewer of them every day. It’s hard to support people who treat you like second class citizens. :0)
#35 by Russell on January 25, 2012 - 8:36 am
I was just asking a question. Respect your answer. I myself vote Republican…have gay friends…and NEVER talk about politics. Granted I dont do that with people I agree with either. Haha
#36 by Alice Melott on January 25, 2012 - 8:37 am
I understand. And part of that is that you guys are young and haven’t had time to “feel” it like us old-timers have! ;0) Keep on thinking!
#37 by Sherron on January 25, 2012 - 8:38 am
We adore + love our gay family, friends + neighbors. I’m fighting for their rights but I won’t vote for Obama. So I’ll have to fight it out with the Republicans.
#38 by Bob on January 25, 2012 - 8:38 am
Sherron – what’s your plan for doing that? How can you fight for a group’s rights and vote for people who oppose those rights?
#39 by Sherron on January 25, 2012 - 8:39 am
Write our congressmen + women, petition, usual way we do things, Bob. It makes it very difficult for those of us with loved ones who are being discriminated against or just bc we believe in fairness for all. Even tho I didn’t vote them in, I shall cont’ to pray for our leaders bc they have a heavy load. I don’t trust most of the Republicans any more than I trust most of the Democrats, leaving me with no one I like any better for whom to vote.
#40 by Jay on January 25, 2012 - 8:40 am
I always thought of my philosophical wing of the Republican party as libertarian. I describe it as the ‘outs’: I want government out of my pocket, out of my church pew, and out of my bedroom.
However, Ron Paul is a nut that has besmirched libertarian philosophy by (a) taking the philosophy to extremes, and (b) pandering to the primary-voting social conservatives on their hot button issues.
The Republican party has been hijacked by extreme right-wing social conservatives who hold disproportionate control via their primary votes. If people that think more like I do can’t take the party back from them, it will dwindle into irrelevance … just as Democrats risked irrelevance before Clinton moved them back to the mainstream.
The Dems had the same problem back then: extreme left-wingers dragging the party into the weeds by nominating candidates that couldn’t win a mainstream election … think George McGovern.
Extreme views from either end of the spectrum have a habit of making headlines, but the vast majority of the people are moderate and balanced in their viewpoint. Bottom line? Crazy as it sounds, the social conservative Republicans are doing GLBTs a favor. The more intolerance they spew, the more the mainstream see it as a matter of fair play and equality. Rant on, you stupid f*ckers!
#41 by Jan Ellen on January 25, 2012 - 1:22 pm
Jay, I always appreciate your analysis, but the bottom line is this — the possibility that we could have certain rights TAKEN AWAY NOW is very, very scary to me. The USTA just rewrote part of their employment policies that are some of the most progressive I have ever seen, and it is beyond just the usual shared benefits and whatnot. We have all of our paperwork in order in case the country goes backwards after all of our victories.
#42 by Jay on January 25, 2012 - 1:22 pm
re: taking away rights … “Do not take counsel of your fears.” (variously attributed to George Patton, Andrew Jackson, and Stonewall Jackson). Show me any major civil rights legislation that has been reversed in the past 50 years … hell, 100 years.
#43 by Kristen on January 25, 2012 - 8:41 am
I always love another good reason to not vote republican! And on the eve of National GSA day. My girls will be in rainbows.
#44 by Brad B on January 25, 2012 - 8:41 am
A possible retort to this would be that you can’t vote Democrat if you love your constitutional right to bear arms. Which is exactly what the NRA told my grandfather in letters, and it became the reason he left the organization. It is straight up wrong to tell someone how he or she should vote on a single issue, and it is worse for one to vote for a candidate or party over a single issue. It is selfish.
I wonder if this author considered the number of gay Republicans that are out there. Also, the author really over-estimates the influence of the President over legislation, or on the flip side, fails to recognize that Presidents never do everything they say they will do during election campaigns.
#45 by Parker on January 25, 2012 - 8:43 am
Brad, though taking away the right to bear arms would be dangerous if we found the need to rebel against our government (which is the reason behind the 2nd amendment), somehow I don’t think it’s the same as the number of rights and levels of equality discussed in the post. Obama and friends aren’t trying to outlaw guns altogether, though one might disagree with their opinions on regulation. Meanwhile, there are Republican presidential candidates who would like to make my relationship with my sig.other illegal. They want to make who I am illegal, or at LEAST make me less worthy of protection under the law than straight folk are.
#46 by Brad B on January 25, 2012 - 8:43 am
I wasn’t defending or attacking the 2nd Amendment or civil rights for homosexuals. My personal opinion on those rights could not matter less in my argument. My point is that we (the American people) have turned both of these rights (and many, many others) into political issues, and on that level they are equal. I believe it is dangerous to vote solely based on a single issue. I believe it is dangerous to tell someone that if they vote for a certain party, than that person doesn’t love/respect someone or something that another party supposedly supports. All sides use this tactic, and it is a logical fallacy of mob appeal: if I vote Republican, that does not mean I do not love my gay uncle, or my female friends who had abortions. If I vote Democrat, that does not mean I do not love the military in my family whose pay and benefits would be cut, or the private school teacher who would lose salary (if not her job) from a loss of school vouchers going to her school.
#47 by Alice Melott on January 25, 2012 - 10:28 am
Brad — None of your analogies — gun control, abortion, military benefits, teacher pay, school vouchers — has any bearing whatsoever on the absence of equality, the most basic of human rights, that was discussed in my essay. To be fair, there are hundreds of reasons I would not vote for any of the current Republican field (not just a single issue or any “logical fallacy of mob appeal”), but I never once indicted all Republicans in my piece. I told the truth from my perspective about the possible effect on gay people if any of the current four candidates is elected. If that doesn’t matter to you, then so be it.
#48 by Marie on January 25, 2012 - 8:46 am
Well, damn, I woke up late so I missed the meat of this conversation and the chance to spar with Jason…that would have been fun!
Jason, it’s actually nice to see someone look at someone else’s opinion and admit that they changed their mind based upon that. That’s rare to see, and I’m guilty of it often. :-0
Alice, I enjoyed reading this essay–thanks for sharing it, Tanya. I completely agree with you and it IS one of the reasons that I could never bring myself to vote for any of these Republicans.
#49 by Kimberly on January 25, 2012 - 8:47 am
Your argument that if I love my gay neighbor I can’t vote Republican goes both ways. If I love my right to have a smaller, less intrusive government than I cannot vote Democrat. If I love being able to decide for myself where my dollars go as far as social spending, then I cannot vote Democrat. Basically, the argument would then turn to- because I have differing beliefs with both parties, I cannot vote at all. sigh. oh, and I am a HUGE supporter of gay rights!!! I love my very good best gay friend!!!!!!!!!! ♥
#50 by Wade on January 25, 2012 - 8:49 am
The Republican party only says they want to get rid of big govt…but when they are in office, they grow govt more than the Dems. St. Ronnie, grew the deficit by a factor of 3. Jr implemented the largest govt agency with the Presc. D. You have to actually look at what they are saying…they aren’t saying they want limited govt…they just want to limit govt to the crap that they want. Don’t you think that it’s intrusive to legeslate morals or tell a rape victim she must have the rapist’s baby? Don’t you think it’s intrusive to tell someone they cannot marry the person they love? Don’t you think it’s intrusive to force christianity on people? Don’t you think it’s intrusive to tell you how to have fun in the bedroom? I just cannot find anything the dems have done to be considered intrusive.
Don’t fall into the fallacy of you know how to spend your dollar better. Let me ask you this…who has more buying power…you or Wal-mart? Who has more buying power…you or a group of millions?
#51 by Michael on January 25, 2012 - 8:50 am
In theory, I disagree. Vilifying all Republicans is not the answer. Women and minorities succeeded when they were able to unite the country, not divide it.
The Republican party is a mess, but there are some decent, respectable Republicans out there who need help to bring the party back from this evangelical nightmare.
#52 by Alice Melott on January 25, 2012 - 9:48 am
Michael — To be clear, I never said this was about all Republicans. The piece is about the consequences to gay people of voting for any of the 4 current candidates. I don’t say a single word about Republicans in general.
#53 by Shauna on January 25, 2012 - 8:51 am
Micheal, in theory, i completely would agree..UNTIL this moment in political happenings in this country and the SELECTION Repubs are left with….
#54 by Timothy on January 25, 2012 - 8:52 am
yes, sadly both (that’s a bigger problem that there’s 2parties, what some of the founders thought would be sufficient grounds for revolution, again. or, they just liked fighting) — both Reps and Dems are part of the same club, bought and paid for by those able to raise the most money. i see no exceptions. how folks in D.C. offices become part of the top 1% when they’re paid at the top 5% baffles anyone doing the math, you just don’t become economically worth this much via a D.C. income. this is why no matter the subject ‘they’ do not get it regarding the whole of the country. note, none of them are willing to make it illegal for them to receive any income from lobbyists, or sub-groups calling themselves other things to get by this, or any income by way of their positions. they do get yearly cola raises, when most Americans don’t even know what this means any longer. this too is another example of how ‘they’ voted into law a way to get a yearly raise without even voting, if they choose. plus, they want health care for all, but are not willing to live with one like the all (others) are being asked. the list does not stop for pages and pages, bought and paid for, one and all. you’re left with voting for the one who seems to pehaps do the least damage, meaning that they’ll represent the ‘all’ of America. i don’t trust any of them,but i do and will vote.wished we actually got to vote in the Presidentail election, like we demand for other countries to be truly democratic (we do not have a 1 person 1 vote for this, again, unlike what we require of others). so, i will not vote for those least likely to represent both people who happen to be Gay as well as those that choose to hate those they have no life. mercy
#55 by Yolanda on January 25, 2012 - 1:28 pm
I know I’m really late in joining this conversation, but remember that the Equal Rights Amendment for women to be guaranteed equal rights under the law was never ratified by tthe states, and thus failed to be established as a constitutional amendment. With the states leaning the way they are more and more, I certainly can’t see THIS amendment passing! Equal rights–yeah, right.
#56 by CJM on January 25, 2012 - 3:07 pm
I have two gay siblings and love them both. However, I don’t think your arguement holds water. The president can think whatever he wants. He/she has to have the agreement of Congress to change anything. I seriously doubt that gay rights will suffer any setback at the hands of any of the current Republican candidates. Similarly, I don’t think abortion rights will suffer a setback. I disagree with the typical Republican stand on both of these issues, but I disagree with the typical Democrat stand on many more issues. There has not been a “perfect” candidate on either side in my memory (I’m 54). The informed voter needs to select who they will vote for using the “lesser of the evils” method, not based on one issue. My gay family members also believe this and will not be offended by my desision, whether it agrees with theirs or not.
#57 by Alice Melott on January 25, 2012 - 4:39 pm
Thanks for weighing in, CJM. I appreciate your perspective. I would also be interested in hearing from your siblings that they wouldn’t, in fact, be happier to know that you supported their human & civil rights over less personal issues. We are all kind of in that place of having to pretend that it’s okay when the fact is, if we really let ourselves think about it, it’s pretty hurtful. So most of us just try to ignore it… But maybe they’re different.
#58 by Brycrasch on January 25, 2012 - 9:35 pm
Hi Alice. I’ve never seen your site before and I am really not one to get into arguments about many things so I avoid commenting on things like this. I am gay and I know the kind of heat someone can get for writing something like the post above, so I was intrigued about the comments to come. I just wanted to express my sincere gratitude to you for putting yourself out there and discussing something that to some is just a political opinion, but to me is my entire life and future. I’m sure you knew the kind of comments you were going to receive and the fighting that would ensue, but you published it anyway. So thank you, thank you for showing me that there are people in the world who see the people behind the issues in the news. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
#59 by djc1977 on January 25, 2012 - 9:45 pm
WOW! I have no words, Thank you for your post. This is awesome!!
#60 by djc1977 on January 25, 2012 - 9:46 pm
Reblogged this on Dichotomy of Deb and commented:
This is so good, I feel the need to share it with you guys. True in every sense
#61 by Bennu on January 26, 2012 - 10:16 am
It never ceases to amaze me how some people can say they aren’t homophobic but think that this is about sex or “special rights”. First off, there are many gay couples who don’t or can’t have sex, just like some straight couples. Being gay isn’t some sort of kink like “I prefer whips and chains”. Our lives are like everyone else’s. Our dreams and goals are the same. We just happen to be happy with another person of the same gender. That’s WHY it isn’t “gay rights”. It’s just human rights and we want to be considered full humans to share in the basic human rights and protections that people get who happen to be happier with someone of the opposite sex. It’s EQUAL rights, not special rights. We don’t CARE what your religious beliefs are or opinions of us are. I don’t think haters should breed but you don’t see me out actively seeking to have you sterilized. Keep your hate but don’t punish me because you have personal issues that you happen to direct at gay people and most likely a lot of other people not like you.
#62 by Celine Signoret W on January 27, 2012 - 12:56 pm
If I could vote in the U.S. there is NO doubt that I would vote for Obama. He’s done so many things for the LGBT Community. All those Republicans are nutcases. I don’t know how people can use their religion (which is supposed to spread love and peace) against people and discriminate. Hopefully, many can put their religious beliefs aside, as well as what the conservative society says and put a little time and thought in order to spread justice and EQUAL rights to all. http://celine-signoret.blogspot.com/2011/11/rainbow-bra-that-makes-difference.html
#63 by Frank on January 27, 2012 - 3:28 pm
Thank you from the bottom of my heart! I can’t tell you in words how much this means to me and my partner of 20 years. God bless you! ♥
#64 by Alice Melott on January 27, 2012 - 3:28 pm
Thank you, Frank. Words from people like you are why I write!
#65 by Stryker on January 28, 2012 - 10:26 pm
Alice,
Ron Paul has never said he supported an amendment against gay marriage. He has actually said its a state issue not a federal.
#66 by Alice Melott on January 28, 2012 - 10:31 pm
I know. We discussed that in the previous comments. Inaction is not the solution.
#67 by meredithancret on February 8, 2012 - 4:36 am
Lesbian conservative here, voting for Romney and that’s because I like him as a candidate…and as a businessman. I don’t think straight people are superior, I don’t think gay people are superior.
As a blogger, I find it absolutely outrageous that you didn’t back up any of your assertions with any proof whatsoever. No quotes, no articles, not a single SHRED of evidence.
I admit, I have no respect for Paul (his foreign policy is, frankly, appalling), Gingrich (spends too much time attacking capitalism/defending personal life, is far too fiscally liberal for my taste), or Santorum (doesn’t know how to keep his religion out of his politics, the only thing conservative about him is his socially conservative views, otherwise quite liberal).
Romney however supports America, puts constitution at the forefront of his politics instead of religion. And he knows the limits and constraints of his office.
#68 by Alice Melott on February 8, 2012 - 6:22 am
I write essays. They contain my opinions, and are not intended to be journalism. But since you mentioned it, I believe all the current candidates’ stands on marriage equality, including Romney’s, make my case. They are against it and that makes them unacceptable candidates at this time in our history in my opinion. And IMHO, if you are a lesbian and are voting Republican, you are voting against your own best interests on the social level. Once we have equal rights, access to the right-wing will be unimpeded. See that? Good news. :0)
#69 by meredithancret on February 8, 2012 - 4:13 pm
Romney is fine with civil unions and is perfectly willing to allow states to decide on their own.
Obama’s view, exactly the same. Just FYI.
#70 by Alice Melott on February 8, 2012 - 4:17 pm
Romney veers harder right every day. Here’s his position yesterday: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/on-gay-marriage-mitt-romney-veers-hard-to-the-right/2012/02/07/gIQALE48wQ_blog.html
That position’s not okay with me.
Obama, on the other hand, is coming around. DADT, DOMA… It’s only a matter of time.
#71 by meredithancret on February 8, 2012 - 4:20 pm
Your “essays” also contain commentary on public figures. I have news for you, you CAN be sued for defamation if the content is not accurate. If you can’t back up your claims, on your own time even if you don’t provide the links in the blog, it can end badly.
Similar to this.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110313/15333613471/dangerous-free-speech-ruling-blogger-has-to-pay-libel-case-despite-telling-truth.shtml
Also, my own best interest is to live in a country with a thriving economy, where I can get a job after college and pay back my student loans, where the government does not tell me how to live (Romney has no interest in that, nor does any traditional conservative). My ability to get married (or get a civil union, as I don’t believe marriage should be in the government’s control at all) is not all that important at the moment. We have much bigger fish to fry in this country right now.
#72 by Alice Melott on February 8, 2012 - 4:24 pm
What defamation? That’s a little dramatic… Good luck getting anybody successfully sued for writing opinions about public figures. Why would you even go there?
If you don’t like what I write, please do us both a favor and don’t read it. If you’re just here to threaten me, I’ll happily ban you. After all, it is MY blog.
#73 by meredithancret on February 8, 2012 - 4:30 pm
That wasn’t a threat of any sort. I was only pointing out that while you think what you are writing is just your “opinion” it can still have drastic results.
I have no interest in trying to get anyone to sue anyone else. All I am saying is that when you say
“All of the current Republican candidates — and to be clear, that’s Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul — have stated categorically that they will turn back the clock on human and civil rights for gay people. They will to varying degrees reinstate DADT, abolish marriage equality through a Constitutional Amendment, delegitimize gay people as a minority class, possibly even make it illegal to be gay. In short, they will rebuild the proverbial closet and shove us all back in.”
With not proof to back up your words, you are playing a dangerous game. Just as other bloggers have done.
#74 by Amanda on February 8, 2012 - 6:17 pm
Not sure what your purpose here is. Possibly to just get attention? I do not believe for one minute that you are a lesbian and a conservative and supporting Romney. You may be one of the three but it just would not make sense for you to be all three.
Why in the world would you attack this blog? Must be for attention.
#75 by meredithancret on February 8, 2012 - 7:14 pm
Well that’s extremely presumptive of you. I have been writing my blog for over a year, feel free to check it out. I have talked, at length, about being all three of those things. Trust me when I say that I do not have the time, nor the inclination, to have made up such an extensive cover story just to frustrate liberals.
Why don’t you believe that I could be all three?
Does the idea that people don’t always fall into pre-defined categories freak you out? I am certainly not the only gay conservative, or lesbian conservative that I know. One, though I disagree with him, is supporting Santorum. Several are undecided, a couple are for Gingrich. I’m one of several that I know who are behind Romney.
As for this blog, I found it through one of the tags I track on wordpress. I’m an active blogger, I read blogs on topics I’m interested in/involved in. I’m a political science major, so discussions of candidates interest me. I did not “attack” this blog. I pointed out that the content was made on assumptions, not facts.
The fact that you see a request for facts to back up statements as an attack is curious to me.