A Stitch in Haste

Like most bloggers and blog readers, my blogroll is constantly evolving as I add new blogs and feeds, while deleting others that atrophy or shift gears. Currently I stand at 131 political blogs, law blogs, gay blogs, newsfeeds (general, financial and legal) and email subscriptions from think tanks.

But it is a very rare occurrence that a single post causes me to unsubscribe to a blog without possibility of appeal, parole or pardon.

This is such a post, from Queer Day, a gay pseudo-news blog:

Those Log Cabin Republicans have issued a 5 point plan they say would help ensure LGBT civil rights victories. The manifesto calls for a de-emphasis on major cities which have large gay communities, developing ties with moderate Republicans, working to develop lines of communication with religious groups, taking the offensive on civil rights initiatives, and placing less emphasis on the courts.

We're responding with a 5 finger knuckle sandwich, metaphorically speaking of course. How they continue to yammer on after their party ignored and annihilated them speaks highly of their delusional denial.

I'm not a Log Cabin Republican. I'm not a Republican. Never have been, never will be. I have no opinion of their "Five-Point Plan." And, being from the Bronx, I can appreciate how some might easily use the term "knuckle sandwich" casually and sarcastically -- no Dark Lord of Political Correctness am I.

No, I am summarily deleting this blog not for the post's target or tone, but for its hypocrisy, something I simply do not tolerate from anyone under any circumstances.

Let's get one thing straight clear, Gay Democrats: You are at least as misguided as your Gay Republican counterparts, and perhaps more so. Yours was the party that gave us the pervert president who signed DOMA into law and who enacted "Don't Ask Don't Tell." Yours was the party that nominated a gold-digger senatorial do-nothing who was perfectly content to let states trample our rights, and to let Washington trample our rights, just so long as it didn't occur via the Constitution. Yours is the party of the socialist clown Barney Frank. Yours is the party that has taken you for granted for decades, for no other reason than because you let them.

Your party does not have the moral high ground on gay rights -- neither party does. You do not have the moral high ground when you engage in the worthless Democrat-versus-Republican politics of the straight majority. And you most certainly forfeit the moral high ground when you belittle your equally misguided Republican counterparts (who are at least proposing something), when you invoke false "axioms" about which is the presumptive "gay party."

You feel a need to be part of the two-party system, to try to work for change within one party or the other? Be my guest and the best of luck to you. But don't pretend that you have a headstart by choosing one party over the other. You're all starting from Go, and it's a long way to Boardwalk.

As for me, I say: A pox on both your parties!

POST SCRIPT: Need another reason to be indignant toward Queer Day? They endorse the apology-photo project. These asses deserve far more than a knuckle sandwich for that. Pathetic.

Related Posts:
Two-Party System, But Which Two Parties?
Two-Party System, Revisited
A Million Gays for Bush?
A Stitch in Haste Withholds Presidential Endorsement

Yes it's necessary to ridicule gay Republicans...

...among others:

In a Christian Broadcasting News segment aired today on The 700 Club concerning how Democrats are reaching out to evangelicals, Howard Dean, chair of the Democratic National Party, said, "The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it says."

Now, for what it's worth, Dean is flat-out wrong:

In fact, the DNC 2004 platform says, "We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a 'Federal Marriage Amendment.' Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart."

The more important observation is, however, not what the Democratic platform says but what the Democratic politicians say. Democratic politicians like Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and now Howard Dean, who have a near-perfect track record of selling out gays whenever it was politically expedient for them to do so.

And the only reason they do so is because gay Democrats let them get away with it.

There is no excuse for any self-respecting gay to be affiliated with either major party. A pox on both their houses.

(Via Good As You.)

To review:

--Gay Voting 101 is that all gay Republicans are, by definition, self-loathing.

--Gay Voting 102 is that gay Democrats aren't much better, especially those who support Hillary Clinton, an unindicted co-conspirator in her pervert husband's betrayal of gays not once but twice (or was it thrice?).

--Gay Voting 201 is that you don't have to belong to a party to vote for its nominee:

[Noel] Freeman had told the national Log Cabin Republicans that he would be stepping down from his position following the Texas primary.
...
As president of Houston's Log Cabin group since August 2006, Freeman had been struggling with the idea of changing parties.

"I've thought long and hard about becoming a Democrat," Freeman said. "I believe that of all the candidates out there, Barack Obama is the one candidate who is most sincerely interested in healing some of the partisan damage that has been caused to our nation over the past 12-16 years."

Notice how Freeman doesn't say he thought about leaving the Republican Party. He instead says that he thought about becoming a Democrat. Apparently the notion of just becoming an independent -- and thereby acknowledging openly and notoriously that neither national party has done anything substantive for gays recently and that neither appears likely to do so anytime soon -- either never occurred to him or made him recoil in horror.

Whichever is the case, how unfortunate.

The best way to combat the inadequacies of the two-party system is by not being a part of it. Is "voting in a primary" really worth selling your soul?

On the other hand, I'll give Freeman credit for this much:

"I haven't decided (what I will do) but I won't vote for Hillary Clinton," said Freeman[.]

I guess even a broken activist is right twice a day.

Given that there is nothing on the nominating agenda for the next month except Pennsylvania, and given that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton profess, loudly and frequently, to be committed to equal rights for gays, one wonders who lead the other in racing to denounce that state's proposed bigot amendment:

A sharply divided Senate Judiciary Committee voted yesterday in favor of amending the state constitution to ban gay and lesbian marriage in Pennsylvania.
...
The gay marriage ban has a long way to go. The bill must be approved not only by the current General Assembly, but also by the 2009-10 Legislature, whose members will be elected in November. If both sessions of the Legislature approve it, the amendment would go to a statewide referendum in November 2009.

Some hasty stitches:

--This is not merely a marriage ban, but rather a cruel, spiteful "no nothing never" amendment that also forbids "the functional equivalent" of marriage (i.e., civil unions and likely even domestic partnerships). When they say "it's only about defending marriage," they lie.

--On the one hand, it's almost refreshing to see a bigot amendment not timed to take place during a presidential election year (cf., Florida); the Pennsylvania popular vote on the amendment would occur in 2009. On the other hand, the ban can still be used as a wedge issue in this election, as candidates for the state legislature can run on a platform of "I promise to vote for/against this amendment..."

But most important of all: Will Clinton and Obama, during this lengthy period of "all Pennsylvania all the time," take a public position against the measure? Will gay Democrats, in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, demand that the two candidates take such a public stance? Or will they do what gay Democrats almost always do: let themselves (and their votes) be taken for granted, only to subsequently be thrown under the bus?

How many times will gay Democrats allow themselves to be betrayed by a Clinton? When will gay Democrats remind Obama that "Yes they can!"?

"Keystone State" indeed.

(Via Good As You.)