Disgusting but traditionally conservative/GOP email I received

[Martinus]

I just think it's a matter of dignity and self-respect, that's all. I don't think being gay is incompatible with the conservative ideology per se - I wouldn't for example mind a gay person voting for the UK tories today. But a gay person supporting the GOP in this day and age is like a black person supporting a segregationist in the 1960s - that's just something you don't do if you have any self respect. It's not about being partisan, it's not about one-issue-voting, it's simply about not giving your support to someone who considers you a second class citizen.

I think it's a matter of the Log Cabin Republicans believing in the basic precepts of the conservative movement and wish to reform from within and thus remain engaged with the movement.

Only that they are despised by the majority of their fellow Republicans (not that Democrats are much better, but at least they do not have institutionalized discrimination against gays written down as one of their main "political commandments").

[Martinus]

I'd forgotten about Obama the great defender of gay marriage.

Last time I checked Democrats have not been coming with a "purity test" of 10 commandments, one of which expressly states they are opposed to equal rights for gays.

[citizen k]

I think it's a matter of the Log Cabin Republicans believing in the basic precepts of the conservative movement and wish to reform from within and thus remain engaged with the movement.

Only that they are despised by the majority of their fellow Republicans (not that Democrats are much better, but at least they do not have institutionalized discrimination against gays written down as one of their main "political commandments").

Time is on their side.

[ulmont]

Only that they are despised by the majority of their fellow Republicans (not that Democrats are much better, but at least they do not have institutionalized discrimination against gays written down as one of their main "political commandments").

Pages 5 (no gays in the military) and 60 (no gay marriage) of the 2008 National GOP platform, to be precise.

[Barrister]

I just think it's a matter of dignity and self-respect, that's all. I don't think being gay is incompatible with the conservative ideology per se - I wouldn't for example mind a gay person voting for the UK tories today. But a gay person supporting the GOP in this day and age is like a black person supporting a segregationist in the 1960s - that's just something you don't do if you have any self respect. It's not about being partisan, it's not about one-issue-voting, it's simply about not giving your support to someone who considers you a second class citizen.

Isn't it possible for a person to not see politics solely as a matter of group identity?

Being denied a right to marry a person you love or to perform certain jobs (e.g. serving in a military) because of a person you love is hardly "solely a matter of group identity". It's about your civil rights.

I'm seriously unsure if you are just thoughtless or ignorant.

Neither?

Look I don't like things the current government is doing.  In particular, I really didn't like how they legislated away our right to collective bargaining, which I suppose is about my "civl rights" as well.

But on balance, I like enough of the other stuff they've done (and don't think the other parties would have treated me any better), so I will continue to vote for them.

Surely however that doesn't mean I don't respect myself as a public servent.

[garbon]

Last time I checked Democrats have not been coming with a "purity test" of 10 commandments, one of which expressly states they are opposed to equal rights for gays.

And that means Dems not treat gays abysmally?

Anyway, whatever happened to the notion that people have multiple identities? Is my gay identity supposed to/required to trump all others?

[Martinus]

I think it's a matter of the Log Cabin Republicans believing in the basic precepts of the conservative movement and wish to reform from within and thus remain engaged with the movement.

Only that they are despised by the majority of their fellow Republicans (not that Democrats are much better, but at least they do not have institutionalized discrimination against gays written down as one of their main "political commandments").

Time is on their side.

I think you are missing my point. Have you not read what I said about the UK tories? They have been openly anti-gay as well  - they aren't anymore, because you can't stop the progress. But I would find a gay person voting for the tories when Section 28 was being passed equally without dignity and self-respect as a gay person voting for the Republicans, when they enshrine their support for DOMA, opposition to gays in the military and opposition to other civil rights for gays as part of their core political dogma.

[Admiral Yi]

I respect myself as a male who is not a member of a protected minority which is why I have difficulty voting for Democrats.

[Martinus]

Only that they are despised by the majority of their fellow Republicans (not that Democrats are much better, but at least they do not have institutionalized discrimination against gays written down as one of their main "political commandments").

Pages 5 (no gays in the military) and 60 (no gay marriage) of the 2008 National GOP platform, to be precise.

I meant the Republican Purity test which consists of only 10 points, one of which is about support for DOMA. 

[citizen k]

Honolulu, Hawaii (CNN) – After the divisive measure gained almost no traction among Republican National Committee members, a "purity test" for GOP candidates was withdrawn Friday before it could be voted on at the party's winter meeting in Hawaii.
Instead, RNC members voted to adopt a watered-down resolution that "urges" party leadership to "carefully screen the record and statements of all candidates who profess to be Republicans" and to determine "that they wholeheartedly support the core principles" of the Republican Party platform.
The new resolution was offered by Bill Crocker, national committeeman from Texas.
The purity resolution – which was first circulated among party members last November and immediately drew criticism from Republicans within the committee and on Capitol Hill – would have required candidates to support at least eight of 10 conservative principles in order to receive financial support from the RNC.
Jim Bopp, the Indiana committeeman and chief sponsor of the purity resolution, insisted that Friday's compromise was not a defeat.
"For the first time in history we are calling upon all Republican leaders to consider the positions of candidates on issues," Bopp told reporters after Friday's general session.
Read the full text of the RNC's resolution after the jump:

But even those who supported the softer measure as an alternative to Bopp's litmus test said the new language is not binding and would have no practical impact on the party's financial decisions.
"There is nothing mandatory in there, and there is nothing required," said Oregon GOP chairman Bob Tiernan. "I am not going to take that back and make my candidate sign it. That is ridiculous."
California GOP chairman Ron Nehring, one of the state party chairs who voted unanimously earlier in the week to oppose the purity test, called the new measure "a nice statement" but said it is "purely advisory."
Others said the issue of candidate support needed to be addressed, especially in the wake of the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district. In that race, a moderate Republican supported and funded by state and national GOP officials was driven out of the contest by conservative activists.
"Most of the GOP and all of the grassroots, all of them have been upset about the Republican Party giving resources to moderate candidates," said Virginia committee member Morton Blackwell. "Unless Republicans can persuade the new grassroots activists that something has changed, then the idea of incorporating them into a permanent Republican majority will not happen."
Even after the purity test was set aside, it was clear that the resolution remained a source of tension between committee members.
When Bopp was speaking to reporters, Tiernan interrupted to dispute Bopp's claim that the new resolution requires party leaders to only support conservative candidates. Bopp turned to Tiernan and snapped: "Shut up."
During Friday's meeting, resolutions committee chairman Henry Barbour addressed the controversy, telling members that certain resolutions "are beginning to water down our message."
"We need to focus more on defeating Democrats in November," Barbour said.
RNC Chairman Michael Steele, who opposed the purity test, did not mention the measure during his remarks to the committee.
Instead, Steele trained his fire on Democrats and blamed their recent losses in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts on "arrogance" and political overreach.
"The Democrats are in effect daring the American people to stop them," Steele said. "They are playing with fire, and they are going to get burned. And we are going to help burn them."
Full text of the RNC resolution adopted Friday:  RESOLUTION CONCERNING PARTY SUPPORT OF CANDIDATES WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee have recently supported primary or special election candidates who professed allegiance to the Republican Party but who, as their circumstances changed and to serve their own interests, turned against the Republican Party and became or supported a candidate of another party; and
WHEREAS, many Republican leaders and Republican organizations were undermined and lost credibility as a result of the actions of such candidates; and
WHEREAS, there will be many more decisions regarding the support of candidates, and many more opportunities to enhance or diminish the credibility of Republicans and Republican organizations, in the coming election cycle; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee urges its leadership and the leadership of all Republican organizations to carefully screen the record and statements of all candidates who profess to be Republicans and who desire the support of Republican leaders and Republicans organizations, and determine that they wholeheartedly support the core principles and positions of the Republican Party as expressed in the Platform of the Republican Party adopted at the 2008 National Convention; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee urges that no support, financial or otherwise, be given to candidates who clearly do not support the core principles and positions of the Republican Party as expressed in the Platform of the Republican Party adopted in the 2008 National Convention.
As approved by the Committee on Resolutions, January 28, 2010.

[ulmont]

Pages 5 (no gays in the military) and 60 (no gay marriage) of the 2008 National GOP platform, to be precise.

I meant the Republican Purity test which consists of only 10 points, one of which is about support for DOMA.

I know, but it's in the national platform twice as well.

[ulmont]

I respect myself as a male who is not a member of a protected minority which is why I have difficulty voting for Democrats.

At the risk of engaging with your argument, I would like to note that "male" is a minority in the United States, and that all races, national origins, genders, and religions are protected by the applicable laws.

[Martinus]

I just think it's a matter of dignity and self-respect, that's all. I don't think being gay is incompatible with the conservative ideology per se - I wouldn't for example mind a gay person voting for the UK tories today. But a gay person supporting the GOP in this day and age is like a black person supporting a segregationist in the 1960s - that's just something you don't do if you have any self respect. It's not about being partisan, it's not about one-issue-voting, it's simply about not giving your support to someone who considers you a second class citizen.

Isn't it possible for a person to not see politics solely as a matter of group identity?

Being denied a right to marry a person you love or to perform certain jobs (e.g. serving in a military) because of a person you love is hardly "solely a matter of group identity". It's about your civil rights.

I'm seriously unsure if you are just thoughtless or ignorant.

Neither?

Look I don't like things the current government is doing.  In particular, I really didn't like how they legislated away our right to collective bargaining, which I suppose is about my "civl rights" as well.

But on balance, I like enough of the other stuff they've done (and don't think the other parties would have treated me any better), so I will continue to vote for them.

Surely however that doesn't mean I don't respect myself as a public servent.

Surely you are not comparing something as fundamental as not being able to marry because of on an immutable inborn trait to a labour law regulatory issue applicable to members of a given profession that people are not forced to perform? 

That's so offensive, I'm left speechless.

[katmai]

That's so offensive, I'm left speechless.

We would never be so lucky

[Martinus]

Last time I checked Democrats have not been coming with a "purity test" of 10 commandments, one of which expressly states they are opposed to equal rights for gays.

And that means Dems not treat gays abysmally?

Anyway, whatever happened to the notion that people have multiple identities? Is my gay identity supposed to/required to trump all others?

What other identity do you have that Democrats not only are opposed to, but actually are opposed to even granting it any protection against discrimination, however arbitrary it may be? you are protected because of your race, your gender, your nationality, your religion (or lack thereof), your financial status (protections of property rights are some of the strongest, actually).