Are Republicans Anti- LGBT?

[Safe_Bet]

As a segment of the general population, I personally don't know (after all, I'm married to a conservative, republican lesbian), but based upon the voting record of the ones in the California State Senate and Assembly, it certainly looks like they are to me. Look at the 2008 voting results and judge for yourself.

LINK TO 2008 Voting Results on LGBT Issues

 

[Guest]

Edited to add: Yes, that is the official party platform.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6783

They don't believe gays should be afforded the same rights as everyone else, they disagree with gays in the military, and they are incredibly offended at the idea of gays marrying.

Here's the entire 2008 RNC Platform.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/upload/documents/RNCPlatformFINAL_WithCover.pdf

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Yeah, the neo-Nazi wing has taken over the party, thanx to Dubya and Rush. Stupid bastards. My hunting buddy insists that you can't have fiscal conservatism without "social conservatism" but in spite of his high intelligence and first rate education, sometimes him plain dumb. Limited government should mean that there are a lot of things that are none of the guvmint's damned business and who you snog, fuck or marry is on that list!




And so is what's in my gunsafe.

 

[Katyusha]

Yeah, the neo-Nazi wing has taken over the party, thanx to Dubya and Rush. Stupid bastards. My hunting buddy insists that you can't have fiscal conservatism without "social conservatism" but in spite of his high intelligence and first rate education, sometimes him plain dumb. Limited government should mean that there are a lot of things that are none of the guvmint's damned business and who you snog, fuck or marry is on that list!

I couldn't agree more.

 

[freshface]

The problem for the Republican party is that their most motivated base is conservative Evangelical Christians. They have enough control over the party to disproportionately influence primary results and platforms and they are Anti-LGBT. When Republican politicians try to distance themselves from that sort of thing, it costs them the support that they need to run. Piss off the base enough, and they'll support someone else in the next primary. Problem is, they've painted themselves into a corner. Their brand of theocracy is a turn-off to the moderates and independents who decide general elections. I think that if the Republicans can't move back to the center, the Democrats will continue to flourish as the party of reason.

Of course, I've never understood how the Log Cabin Republicans could stick with their party. And how on earth did you manage to find a conservative Lesbian Republican in California? They have to be a very rare breed.

ETA: Neo-Nazi nut job is probable a more accurate description.

 

[trysail]

I have a question.

Life insurance and annuity ( and Social Security ) premiums and corporate pension contributions have been calculated for many decades by reference to fairly accurate mortality tables of life expectancies and actuarial assumptions. The premiums charged and pension contributions have not anticipated liabilities that would accrue due to joint survivorship. What effect would legalization of gay marriage have on Social Security solvency, pension funding and life insurance company reserves?

 

[Safe_Bet]

Of course, I've never understood how the Log Cabin Republicans could stick with their party. And how on earth did you manage to find a conservative Lesbian Republican in California? They have to be a very rare breed. .

Shes imported!
(we are both refugees from the Midwest.)

Actually, until this election Amy (my spouse) was an active member of the local branch of the Log Cabin Republicans. She, like MANY of them, had to balance her fiscal conservatism against the RNC's anti-LGBT platform. God bless her penny piching heart, but she couldn't do it this year (the GOP's tacit support of Prop 8 was the final straw) and took the monumental step of voting for Obama (I'm so proud! ).

She is not alone in this either. From what we are hearing from people who are still involved with the LCR, membership is down by over 50%.

BTW, if a social liberal ever runs with a fiscally conservative plank in their platform they are going to get a BOATLOAD of contributions from the LGBT community cuz there is a LOT of money there. I've never figured out why someone hasn't stepped up by now.

 

[midwestyankee]

I have a question.

Life insurance and annuity ( and Social Security ) premiums have been charged for many decades based on fairly accurate mortality tables of life expectancies and actuarial assumptions. The premiums charged have not anticipated liabilities that might accrue due to joint survivorship. What effect would legalization of gay marriage have on Social Security solvency and life insurance company reserves?

No doubt there would have to be some very minor adjustments. However, the adjustments would probably be tiny.

Even if a few million lesbians married soon, the changes to overall mortality rates for spousal survivors would be miniscule. Bear in mind that such rates are calculated across very large populations and including the expected-to-be longer lifespan of even a few million women married to other women would add only an incremental difference over the presumed life expectacies of any male partners the same women might have otherwise had.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I have a question.

Life insurance and annuity ( and Social Security ) premiums and corporate pension contributions have been calculated for many decades by reference to fairly accurate mortality tables of life expectancies and actuarial assumptions. The premiums charged and pension contributions have not anticipated liabilities that would accrue due to joint survivorship. What effect would legalization of gay marriage have on Social Security solvency and life insurance company reserves?

Other than allowing gay people to live longer as a married couple? Married people do live longer, after all. Surely there is no attempt here to intimate that having a same-sex orientation should be cause for a shorter life?

 

[trysail]

Other than allowing gay people to live longer as a married couple? Married people do live longer, after all. Surely there is no attempt here to intimate that having a same-sex orientation should be cause for a shorter life?

You are, of course, correct.

Live expectancy for joint survivorship is considerably longer than single life expectancy ( particularly for males ). A single male at say 65 has a life expectancy of ( and I'm throwing these figures out because I don't feel like looking up the mortality tables ) ~16-odd years ( from linked table below ). A female at age 65 has a life expectancy of almost 20 years ( also from linked table below ). A married hetero couple who are both 65 have a joint life expectancy of something like ~40-odd years ( ?- I don't know, I haven't found a joint life expectancy table ). I haven't a clue what the joint life expectancies of married gay couples might be.

ETA:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html

 

[freshface]

You are, of course, correct.

Live expectancy for joint survivorship is considerably longer than single life expectancy ( particularly for males ). A single male at say 65 has a life expectancy of ( and I'm throwing these figures out because I don't feel like looking up the mortality tables ) ~10-odd years. A married hetero couple who are both 65 have a joint life expectancy of something like ~25-odd years. I haven't a clue what the joint life expectancies of married gay couples might be.

I'd imagine it would be longer for them too. The increase in longevity is attributed to the fact that couples tend to support each other, eat healthier meals, suffer from less depression etc. No idea if gay male couples are more likely to eat healthy meals than men with wives. I seem to recall that for women, there wasn't much of a difference in longevity for singles versus married.

 

[3113]

Yeah, the neo-Nazi wing has taken over the party, thanx to Dubya and Rush. Stupid bastards. My hunting buddy insists that you can't have fiscal conservatism without "social conservatism" but in spite of his high intelligence and first rate education, sometimes him plain dumb. Limited government should mean that there are a lot of things that are none of the guvmint's damned business and who you snog, fuck or marry is on that list!

Most Republicans who think like this and are in favor of GLBT rights are now, rightly, calling themselves libertarians. It's the Republican party's own fault. They managed to keep members even after embracing the Evangelicals, but what really did them in was Bush's "big government."

At this point Republicans come across as politicians who talking about fiscal conservation (like they talk about democracy and supporting truths) but don't mean it. Any of it. They seem to be religious fanatics who favor holy wars and a kleptocracy and will pull any and every dirty trick to get what they want. Fiscally conservative Republicans who despise the Evangelical hold on the party are finally jumping ship and the libertarian party is reaping the benefits, as that party stands for, well, no government in either people's wallets or bedrooms.

 

[rgraham666]

Fiscally conservative Republicans who despise the Evangelical hold on the party are finally jumping ship and the libertarian party is reaping the benefits, as that party stands for, well, no government in either people's wallets or bedrooms.

And that dichotomy will cause them the same problems it's caused the Republicans.

A country costs. Like a house it costs a lot to build and a lot to maintain. Since, in my opinion, they aren't willing to pay that cost a country under a 'libertarian' government will have the same problems as the country under a Republican one.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Not to mention the fact that the Libertarian Party is an oxymoron. Not only does it not believe in organized government, it can't get itself organized enough to run a successful local campaign. Is there anywhere in the country where Libertarians actually hold office? I'd really like to know.

 

[3113]

And that dichotomy will cause them the same problems it's caused the Republicans.

Won't argue with you there, but those who have faith in the political religion of less-government is better and the world should be run by marketplace forces, well, after the big-bank-bailout they can't trust the republican party to uphold their values, so it's off to the libertarians.

Not to mention the fact that the Libertarian Party is an oxymoron. Not only does it not believe in organized government, it can't get itself organized enough to run a successful local campaign.

True enough. I suspect that republicans who have jumped ship have done so to scare the party back in line. If it goes back to it's old ways (i.e., enough with religion, let's get back to low taxes and little government), they'll probably jump back aboard. If the party stays as is, you might see the Libertarian become more organized.

 

[off2bed]

Strange, I'm hetero and I can't marry another dude either. Seems to me, we have exactly the same rights as gays do.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Won't argue with you there, but those who have faith in the political religion of less-government is better and the world should be run by marketplace forces, well, after the big-bank-bailout they can't trust the republican party to uphold their values, so it's off to the libertarians.


True enough. I suspect that republicans who have jumped ship have done so to scare the party back in line. If it goes back to it's old ways (i.e., enough with religion, let's get back to low taxes and little government), they'll probably jump back aboard. If the party stays as is, you might see the Libertarian become more organized.

What? You mean you and I will have to take over? I'm not so sure about that . . .

 

[Stella_Omega]

Strange, I'm hetero and I can't marry another dude either. Seems to me, we have exactly the same rights as gays do.

I somehow doubt you could ever find a woman who would marry you, either. So in that, you share the same lack of rights as I do.

 

[cantdog]

The problem for the Republican party is that their most motivated base is conservative Evangelical Christians. They have enough control over the party to disproportionately influence primary results and platforms and they are Anti-LGBT. When Republican politicians try to distance themselves from that sort of thing, it costs them the support that they need to run. Piss off the base enough, and they'll support someone else in the next primary. Problem is, they've painted themselves into a corner. Their brand of theocracy is a turn-off to the moderates and independents who decide general elections. I think that if the Republicans can't move back to the center, the Democrats will continue to flourish as the party of reason.

Of course, I've never understood how the Log Cabin Republicans could stick with their party. And how on earth did you manage to find a conservative Lesbian Republican in California? They have to be a very rare breed.

ETA: Neo-Nazi nut job is probable a more accurate description.

Those megachurch Christians [to use a less offensive term than 'Christo-fascists'] are organized, too. They can get people out by the busload. Remember that poor bastard who wanted to finally pull the plug on his poor brain-dead wife, who'd been essentially held in limbo for months on the machines? They had rotations of people, bussed in and out, to moan and hallelujah and carry on mass prayer and possession in the spirit all over the courthouse steps, day after day.

When you tap into the megachurches, you recruit a disciplined and plastic battalion of cloned zealots. It's very tempting when you need canvassers or telephone callers during a campaign. The problem is paying the piper afterward. To give quid for that kinda quo you have to sponsor all this loser legislation that you just know will be unconstitutional later on. You have to withhold condoms from AIDS-plagued Africans. You have to turn a blind eye to creationist inroads wrecking the country's science education.

But man, do they have organization.

 

[3113]

What? You mean you and I will have to take over? I'm not so sure about that . . .

Take over the Libertarians? No way. At this point I'm close to becoming a communist--that makes me the libertarian anti-christ. I'm gonna get me a Che Guevara tee shirt and a beret!

Those megachurch Christians [to use a less offensive term than 'Christo-fascists']

Why be "less" offensive? http://bestsmileys.com/angles/9.gif It's not like they'd extend to you the same courtesy

 

[Safe_Bet]

Why be "less" offensive? http://bestsmileys.com/angles/9.gif It's not like they'd extend to you the same courtesy

All I want is for the ghost of Ella Fitzgerald to hit the famous "memorex" note while standing in the middle of the Crystal Cathedral!

 

[Huckleman2000]

All I want is for the ghost of Ella Fitzgerald to hit the famous "memorex" note while standing in the middle of the Crystal Cathedral!

LOL, I was going to say "she better have an umbrella", but a ghost wouldn't need one.
DOH!

 

[voluptuary_manque]

All I want is for the ghost of Ella Fitzgerald to hit the famous "memorex" note while standing in the middle of the Crystal Cathedral!

I like it!



Uh, how does Amy feel about running for office?

 

[Tzara]

All I want is for the ghost of Ella Fitzgerald to hit the famous "memorex" note while standing in the middle of the Crystal Cathedral!

That would destroy one of the signature buildings of a famous gay architect.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

That would destroy one of the signature buildings of a famous gay architect.

Johnson had so many great buildings that losing one wouldn't hurt . . . especially that Temple to Unsound Theology. And it may be famous but it's still ugly!