Log Cabin Endorses Sen. John McCain for President

[barneyboy]

http://online.logcabin.org/

gay republicans

[barneyboy]

http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=21367

McCain’s gay Q&A
‘I hope gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me’
By WILLIAM R. KAPFER | Oct 1, 1:06 PM

Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told the Blade in an exclusive written interview this week that he appreciates the Log Cabin Republicans’ decision to endorse him, and he hopes “gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me.”

McCain’s decision to answer questions submitted to him in writing marks the first known time a Republican presidential nominee has agreed to an interview with a gay publication.

McCain reiterated his long-held position that he would leave it up to military leaders to decide whether the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law should be retained or repealed. But he suggested that he would support a “review” of the policy.

Washington Blade: What personal experiences or friendships in your life have shaped how you view gay issues?


Republican presidential nominee John McCain reiterated his support for California’s Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage there, but indicated he is open to a review of the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. (Photo by Carolyn Kaster/AP)

John McCain: I have known former Congressman Jim Kolbe for 25 years. We first ran for Congress in Arizona the same year — in 1982. We served together starting in 1985. He’s a great American who spent two decades serving his country in Congress. Like me, he also served in Vietnam so we have a special kinship. When he came out in 1996, there was no question that I would stand by him. He’s a friend and a patriot and has been an admirable public servant, and a good example of why someone’s sexuality should not be relevant in public life.

I have also known former Tempe Mayor [Neil] Giuliano for many years. He headed Mayors for McCain in our 2000 campaign. I stood by him when there was an effort to recall him in 2001, led by people who objected to him being an openly gay public official. He was a hard-working public servant and someone I have great respect for.

Blade: Do you have any role models who are openly gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender?

McCain: I had the humbling experience of speaking at Mark Bingham’s funeral after the attacks on Sept. 11. Mark had supported me during the 2000 campaign. Unfortunately, I barely knew him, but our country learned about him after 9-11. He was one of the heroes on 9-11 who tried to retake control of United Flight 93. His efforts along with the other brave patriots could have saved hundreds of lives. I honor and respect Mark. Memories of his sacrifice and the other victims from 9-11 motivate me everyday to make sure we keep our nation safe from the terrorists who want to attack our way of life because freedom is a threat to their message of hate.

Here’s what I said during his eulogy:

I love my country, and I take pride in serving her. But I cannot say that I love her more or as well as Mark Bingham did, or the other heroes on United Flight 93 who gave their lives to prevent our enemies from inflicting an even greater injury on our country. It has been my fate to witness great courage and sacrifice for America's sake, but none greater than the selfless sacrifice of Mark Bingham and those good men who grasped the gravity of the moment, understood the threat, and decided to fight back at the cost of their lives. (The full eulogy is avail

[Duncan]

Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told the Blade in an exclusive written interview this week that he appreciates the Log Cabin Republicans’ decision to endorse him, and he hopes “gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me.”

It is totally shocking that a group of Republicans have announced that they're supporting the Republican candidate.

[barneyboy]

It is totally shocking that a group of Republicans have announced that they're supporting the Republican candidate.

not at all ,you just been in the brainwashed city of Seattle too long

where you have to drink fluoride that dumbs you down!!

do research on how its bad google it

[Ballard Pimp]

It is totally shocking that a group of Republicans have announced that they're supporting the Republican candidate.

It's certainly not surprising, Duncan, but it is sad. See, these folks are endorsing a candidate who is running on a platform which demands that basic human rights laws should not apply to them, that they should not be allowed to marry, and that advocates making their forms of sexual expression a crime.

It is serious evidence that rich gays are as morally corrupt as rich straights.

[Duncan]

IIt is serious evidence that rich gays are as morally corrupt as rich straights.

I agree. That said, I have a serious problem voting for Obama because he doesn't (or at least won't) say that he supports 'gay marriage' (depressing phrase). I realise why he can't run on a ticket that supports it. It still depresses me though. I'll vote for him as the lesser of two evils, but I don't feel passionate about him.

I am very aware that I should refrain from ranting about it, because it'll seem that I'm claiming that it's much better where I live. That said, I can 'marry' who I want here, I can't back home. It's one of the main reasons I stay here. It's stupid, but it gives me a feeling of freedom that I don't have in the US.

[Ballard Pimp]

I agree. That said, I have a serious problem voting for Obama because he doesn't (or at least won't) say that he supports 'gay marriage' (depressing phrase). I realise why he can't run on a ticket that supports it. It still depresses me though. I'll vote for him as the lesser of two evils, but I don't feel passionate about him.

I am very aware that I should refrain from ranting about it, because it'll seem that I'm claiming that it's much better where I live. That said, I can 'marry' who I want here, I can't back home. It's one of the main reasons I stay here. It's stupid, but it gives me a feeling of freedom that I don't have in the US.

I just want to say something that I haven't read in these columns about "gay" marriage.

I know how frustrating it is for people who are on the short end of the civil rights stick to hear explanations of anything from folks on the long end, but there are many things going on that are not apparent.

For a long time Republicans have brayed about wanting "strict constructionists" for judges and not "activists". In fact, of course, those words have no meaning in reality. For example, the present right-wing Supreme Court has been extremely "activist" in trimming away the powers of Congress. But the words are code. At first they were code for slowing racial integration. For what it's worth, Duncan, nobody wrote it in the papers, but government-sponsored racial integration ended three or four years ago when the Supreme Court (in a case originating in Seattle) prohibited consideration of race in school assignments.

Next, "judicial activism" consisted of supporting the right to abortion. When America became a country, first-trimester abortion was legal and unrestricted in all 13 states. In the 1820s Roman Catholics undertook to ban abortion, beginning in Maryland, where they were most numerous. By 1920 or so it was illegal in all the states. In 1973 the Supreme Court moved back to the position of the law in 1789 when the Constitution was adopted. What could be more "strict constructionist" than that?

Then suddenly and quite unexpectedly to Republicans, Massachusetts's Supreme Court upheld the right of gays to marry each other in 2002 or 2003. But that requires some explanation.

It's really quite simple. Practicing law is really adopting a thought process. Despite the romance and hostility of TV lawyers, they all share certain tendencies of thought. One such tendency is a similar way of analyzing ideas. For example, all Americans have a right to marry. It's not written in the Constitution, but, except for certain near relations, one can marry whomever one chooses. Except for someone of the same gender. But why, someone asked? Hmmmm. It's a Constitutional right, no doubt about that. Constitutional rights can only be denied based on a "compelling state interest". So what is the compelling state interest in forbidding people from marrying those of the same gender?

Well, follow me close here, (there) (isn't) (one).

Marriage is a civil status with many benefits to the partners. The prohibition on near relatives marrying is to prevent the birth of more idiots than already populate the Republican Party. That's a compelling state interest. But with gay folk, that ain't gonna happen.

So suddenly a majority of lawyers, judges, and such folks thought about it and realized that, except for religious bigotry, there isn't a reason to prevent gays from marrying. I would guess that gay marriage has the support of 60% or 70% of folks in the legal community.

THAT's what McCain means by appointing "strict constructionist" judges.

[toasterhedgehog]

not at all ,you just been in the brainwashed city of Seattle too long

where you have to drink fluoride that dumbs you down!!

do research on how its bad google it

Seattle is widely considered the smartest city in the country. At the least, it's the most educated.

Education Statistics for Seattle
Percentage of city adults who stopped at each level:
Earned a graduate and/or professional degree: 17.3%
Earned a bachelor's degree: 29.9%
Earned an associate degree: 6.4%
Went to college, but didn't earn a degree: 20.6%
Graduated from high school: 15.3%
Dropped out of high school: 10.5%

Hey Barneyboy, you aren't actually trying to convince anybody of anything right? You're just here to rant about your absolute undying faith in all things Republican, right? Cause if you're trying to change anybody's minds, you are failing miserably.

I don't think you understand the minds here. You think that how strongly you feel, and how loud you yell, makes you right. Most people that post here think that your argument should match observation of reality. Your arguments do not make any sense.

If you are trying to change people's mind, then maybe you should insult them less. You come off like an ignorant asshole.

[Duncan]

I just want to say something that I haven't read in these columns about "gay" marriage.

I know how frustrating it is for people who are on the short end of the civil rights stick to hear explanations of anything from folks on the long end, but there are many things going on that are not apparent.

For a long time Republicans have brayed about wanting "strict constructionists" for judges and not "activists". In fact, of course, those words have no meaning in reality. For example, the present right-wing Supreme Court has been extremely "activist" in trimming away the powers of Congress. But the words are code. At first they were code for slowing racial integration. For what it's worth, Duncan, nobody wrote it in the papers, but government-sponsored racial integration ended three or four years ago when the Supreme Court (in a case originating in Seattle) prohibited consideration of race in school assignments.

Next, "judicial activism" consisted of supporting the right to abortion. When America became a country, first-trimester abortion was legal and unrestricted in all 13 states. In the 1820s Roman Catholics undertook to ban abortion, beginning in Maryland, where they were most numerous. By 1920 or so it was illegal in all the states. In 1973 the Supreme Court moved back to the position of the law in 1789 when the Constitution was adopted. What could be more "strict constructionist" than that?

Then suddenly and quite unexpectedly to Republicans, Massachusetts's Supreme Court upheld the right of gays to marry each other in 2002 or 2003. But that requires some explanation.

It's really quite simple. Practicing law is really adopting a thought process. Despite the romance and hostility of TV lawyers, they all share certain tendencies of thought. One such tendency is a similar way of analyzing ideas. For example, all Americans have a right to marry. It's not written in the Constitution, but, except for certain near relations, one can marry whomever one chooses. Except for someone of the same gender. But why, someone asked? Hmmmm. It's a Constitutional right, no doubt about that. Constitutional rights can only be denied based on a "compelling state interest". So what is the compelling state interest in forbidding people from marrying those of the same gender?

Well, follow me close here, (there) (isn't) (one).

Marriage is a civil status with many benefits to the partners. The prohibition on near relatives marrying is to prevent the birth of more idiots than already populate the Republican Party. That's a compelling state interest. But with gay folk, that ain't gonna happen.

So suddenly a majority of lawyers, judges, and such folks thought about it and realized that, except for religious bigotry, there isn't a reason to prevent gays from marrying. I would guess that gay marriage has the support of 60% or 70% of folks in the legal community.

THAT's what McCain means by appointing "strict constructionist" judges.

I take your point. However, it shouldn't be about judges (you may well agree?).

This is where the debate always looses my sympathy. The fact that it comes down to the Constitution, or the Court. I don't, in theory, have a problem with common law. I don't, in theory, have a problem with a codified constitution. I do, however, have a problem with the way it's used in the US. The Constitution is used to justify, or stop, anything and everything. The fact that many judges are elected, or politically appointed, still blows my mind. I just don't get it. I want a judge to enforce the law, not a judge to enforce the law with a Democrat / Republican slant.

I guess more basic than that is a recent experience here. A few years ago the UK government passed 'civil partnerships'. It's the same as marriage, you just can't do it in a church. The thing that amazed me is this. It passed with almost no mainstream opposition. All the main newspapers and TV channels were supportive of it. I really heard almost no negative comments on it.

So, I'm doing something that I promised I wouldn't do on this forum. I'm comparing the UK to the US and saying that the UK has behaved better. I want to live in the US again. I just don't feel able to while this crap is still up for debate, Worse still, while this crap is a key issue. Even worse still, while this is often decided by judges rather than elected representatives. I just can't understand a country where gay marriage is such a big debate, where it's something that polarises the country so much. I think I've been here too long.

[Ballard Pimp]

I take your point. However, it shouldn't be about judges (you may well agree?).

Yes, I agree completely. In a civilized society we should be willing to recognize the civil rights of others.

Just like racial segregation. The states should have voluntarily repealed racial segregation laws, opened their arms and institutions to all citizens on an equal and impartial basis, and should have done so without court orders.

Yep.

And if frogs had pockets, they'd carry handguns.



I guess more basic than that is a recent experience here. A few years ago the UK government passed 'civil partnerships'. It's the same as marriage, you just can't do it in a church. The thing that amazed me is this. It passed with almost no mainstream opposition. All the main newspapers and TV channels were supportive of it. I really heard almost no negative comments on it.



It's really a question of numbers. Go throughout all of Britain and find the most raving, homophobic lunatic who babbles Bible verses on streetcorners, predicts an immediate Apocolypse, and deems all gays to be worthy to burn in Hell forever. There's only a few of them, and they're only that way because they're off their medications, right?

Well, here they are 40% of the Republican Party and one of them is running for Vice-President.

[barneyboy]

log cabins dont also vote republican i dont think so, and i doubt they would if that candidate wanted to imprison gays

[carnivorous chicken]

log cabins dont also vote republican i dont think so, and i doubt they would if that candidate wanted to imprison gays

Wait a sec... So, it didn't surprise me that barney didn't get Duncan's crack as sarcasm. And it seemed others didn't quite get it either. But now barney is arguing that the Log Cabin Republicans not only do support McCain but that they don't vote Republican? I'm having a hard time understanding barney's writing... Let me see if coloring the words "Republican" and "McCain" red will help make a connection.

Some people do vote against their interests (gay republicans, Hilary supporters who may vote the McCain ticket), and I don't get it, but to each his/her own I suppose.

[barneyboy]

well all republicans dont always vote for only republicans and all democrats always dont vote for democrats

but i suppose in Seattle they usually do and id say Seattle has maybe 5% republicans

ill assume you are from Seattle- thats how they think

there are more important issues in life rather than this crap ya know

[barneyboy]

if dino rossi got 200 more votes than c Gregoire or youd say maybe 500 less then we can see the same people voted for rossi as well as for the democrats like patty Murray

so you see Einstein ,some crossed party lines

got it now?

[carnivorous chicken]

well all republicans dont always vote for only republicans and all democrats always dont vote for democrats

but i suppose in Seattle they usually do and id say Seattle has maybe 5% republicans

ill assume you are from Seattle- thats how they think

there are more important issues in life rather than this crap ya know


Dear Dipshit,

What is counterintuitive (sorry, you might have to look that one up) is when people who are members of one party vote for the other; that's the part that goes against expectations (although there are always some who cross party lines in voting). So let me see if I get this straight (no pun intended!): it's surprising to you that a group of gay republicans are actually endorsing the republican candidate, because sometimes people vote across party lines? So are you arguing that voting across party lines is the norm and these "mavericks" (sorry, couldn't resist) are bucking the trend and actually voting for the party they outwardly support?

Yes, I am born and raised in Seattle but don't live there now, unfortunately. So I guess I am guilty of thinking like a Seattleite (I guess that means I make some sense?). And you? Where are you from so I might know where convoluted thinking is the rule?

What is disingenuous (you might want to look that up as well) is for you to start a thread, realize you are an idiot who didn't know that the Log Cabin Republicans are republicans, and then argue that none of it matters because there are more important things in life.

Yer internet pal,

CC

[Duncan]

Dear Dipshit,

What is counterintuitive (sorry, you might have to look that one up) is when people who are members of one party vote for the other; that's the part that goes against expectations (although there are always some who cross party lines in voting). So let me see if I get this straight (no pun intended!): it's surprising to you that a group of gay republicans are actually endorsing the republican candidate, because sometimes people vote across party lines? So are you arguing that voting across party lines is the norm and these "mavericks" (sorry, couldn't resist) are bucking the trend and actually voting for the party they outwardly support?

Yes, I am born and raised in Seattle but don't live there now, unfortunately. So I guess I am guilty of thinking like a Seattleite (I guess that means I make some sense?). And you? Where are you from so I might know where convoluted thinking is the rule?

What is disingenuous (you might want to look that up as well) is for you to start a thread, realize you are an idiot who didn't know that the Log Cabin Republicans are republicans, and then argue that none of it matters because there are more important things in life.

Yer internet pal,

CC

Well said, and with far more patience than I could muster. I can only assume that Barney is one of two things. Either twelve, or further proof that the US education system needs more funding. No coherent argument, no correct spelling and punctuation and no ability to follow a discussion.

[barneyboy]

Dear Dipshit,

What is counterintuitive (sorry, you might have to look that one up) is when people who are members of one party vote for the other; that's the part that goes against expectations (although there are always some who cross party lines in voting). So let me see if I get this straight (no pun intended!): it's surprising to you that a group of gay republicans are actually endorsing the republican candidate, because sometimes people vote across party lines? So are you arguing that voting across party lines is the norm and these "mavericks" (sorry, couldn't resist) are bucking the trend and actually voting for the party they outwardly support?

Yes, I am born and raised in Seattle but don't live there now, unfortunately. So I guess I am guilty of thinking like a Seattleite (I guess that means I make some sense?). And you? Where are you from so I might know where convoluted thinking is the rule?

What is disingenuous (you might want to look that up as well) is for you to start a thread, realize you are an idiot who didn't know that the Log Cabin Republicans are republicans, and then argue that none of it matters because there are more important things in life.

Yer internet pal,

CC

"pal" ,your post makes no sense to me at all
you say i dont know the log cabins republicans are republicans? of course i know they are

i pointed out that in our "liberal" state of wa that rossi got half or more of the votes legally and those same voters probably15% about- also voted for patty Murray or other democrats who were running -the obvious

what more i can say -well there is nothing

these facts stand on their own

you sound like you want to appear to be intelligent -well maybe you're some rocket scientist in some field, i dont know

but why such a rude manner?

duncan also -great rude nonsense from you too

democrats cant discuss issues just argue,thus the country is in decline

congress is less popular than bush keep in mind

see real clear politics polls

[barneyboy]

i wonder do the moderators here also agree my posts dont make sense? i think they make sense enough

if youre somewhere discussing politics and telling me why i should vote for messiah oabama do you cll people names like dipshit? so only on internet this happens usually

the internet causes people to be rude which adds up to about 5% of the reason people like me wont vote for people you want me to vote for,but maybe deep down youre a republican and want mccain

maybe because you had a bad relationship with your father this is true

lol

[barneyboy]

i lived in Seattle 30 years or more and born there in 50s
i live in wa state somewhere

am i gay ?

maybe and maybe not -

ive thought i was gay in the past but never get around to anything much-why am i bothering to say this ?

democrats cant discuss issues

[Shattered Roses]

i wonder do the moderators here also agree my posts dont make sense? i think they make sense enough


They do not make sense.


the internet causes people to be rude which adds up to about 5% of the reason people like me wont vote for people you want me to vote for,but maybe deep down youre a republican and want mccain


Right. So because Obama has some supporters who called you a dipshit, you won't vote for him. I support McCain, and you, sir, are a dipshit.


lol

Are you serious? "lol"? You are 12, aren't you?


duncan also -great rude nonsense from you too


I actually thought Duncan handled you politely and patiently. Not to mention I completely agree with completely legal same-sex civil unions. "Marriage" is really up to the individual religious organizations to disallow, but civil unions are the domain of government and therefore religious bigotry should not govern policy.


there are more important issues in life rather than this crap ya know


What can be more important than civil rights?

[barneyboy]

shattered roses you really are a jerk and new jersey stinks

what an arrogant fool

troll!!

[Shattered Roses]

what an arrogant fool


ah, the irony.

[carnivorous chicken]

am i gay ?

maybe and maybe not -

ive thought i was gay in the past but never get around to anything much-why am i bothering to say this ?

democrats cant discuss issues

Barney,

Your posts make little sense, although maybe they make sense to you. It's clear you are a little confused and have some issues aside from punctuation, capitalization and grammar. Go back to your first post: a link to Log Cabin Republicans with the comment "gay republicans." Do you assume people here aren't in the know or sophisticated enough to realize there is a group of gay republicans? What was your point? Irony?

Someone once asked a rocket scientist about the phrase "It's not rocket science," used to describe something that was within one's intellectual grasp. He wondered what rocket scientists say. The answer: "It's not sociology."

Yer internet pal,

CC

[barneyboy]

so about 20 people come here?if your for McCain do you go to other forums?

it seems a waste to read or reply to your posts

whats in it for me?

[Duncan]

so about 20 people come here?if your for McCain do you go to other forums?

it seems a waste to read or reply to your posts

whats in it for me?

So don't. (10)

[carnivorous chicken]

so about 20 people come here?if your for McCain do you go to other forums?

it seems a waste to read or reply to your posts

whats in it for me?

If you have to ask, you'll never know.

Nice to know you, don't let the door smack yer ass on the way out.

[Shattered Roses]

so about 20 people come here?if your for McCain do you go to other forums?

it seems a waste to read or reply to your posts

whats in it for me?

I'm for McCain, but I (usually) am comprehensible. So long as you manage to actually argue points other than: "You guys are really liberal, I don't like that" no one will call you stupid. People may insult my politcal views, but I don't think anyone here believes me to be of inferior intelligence.

Without Moderates like myself and Conservatives like yourself, this forum would essentially be dedicated to agreement and the only debates would be over grammar. What's in it for you is the practice of writing a very unique kind of essay. You shouldn't try to convert anyone to your viewpoints, it won't happen. Accept that they are who they are and you are who are and find some sort of common ground between yourself and people like Carnivorous Chicken. Ultimately, you will have a better feel for where people are coming from and you might just have some more insight into whatever it is you are talking about.

[Shattered Roses]

Barney,
Someone once asked a rocket scientist about the phrase "It's not rocket science," used to describe something that was within one's intellectual grasp. He wondered what rocket scientists say. The answer:

"It's not like we're trying to talk to women."


And yes, I know it was "brain surgery."

[carnivorous chicken]

"It's not like we're trying to talk to women."


And yes, I know it was "brain surgery."

I messed up. What I have (Hechter and Horne, 2003) has it that the rocket scientist stated "it's not like it's theoretical physics!" And then the theoretical physicist stated "It's not like it's sociology." Had to check. But the "trying to talk to women" makes so much more sense and applies to so many people in both the natural and social sciences. And of course it could be "trying to talk to men" as well in many cases...

[meherenowie]

I just call it rocket surgery.

[Ballard Pimp]

i pointed out that in our "liberal" state of wa that rossi got half or more of the votes legally and those same voters probably15% about- also voted for patty Murray or other democrats who were running -the obvious

what more i can say -well there is nothing

these facts stand on their own


Barney, this is an interesting meme. No election in Washington State has been more critically examined than the 2004 governor's race, and there has never been a race in which we could be more certain of the result, and it is the opposite of your asserted "facts".

In contesting the result the state Republican Party had the opportunity to judge shop across the entire state. They chose to bring suit in Chelan County, and hoped that the case would be assigned to Judge Bridger, a conservative Republican who had overturned the results of a local mayoral election a year or so before because the winner was not technically a resident.

If I were a lawyer and could judge shop across the entire state, I think it likely I would win every case I brought.

Judge Bridger let the Republican Party whine on for two weeks, presenting all their possible evidence. At the end of the trial Judge Bridger ruled that there had, indeed, been vote fraud in King County; but it had been committed by Republicans (and one crazed Libertarian felon) and he deducted those votes from Rossi's total.

Note the outcome: Absolutely no vote fraud by Democrats in King County, but fraudulent votes cast by Rossi supporters in King County.

In perhaps the only graceful act he's done in his life, Rossi chose not to appeal the result. He knew that he couldn't win with loaded dice in Chelan County, so he wasn't going to win elsewhere.

I don't expect you to try to answer this. You'd rather believe your fairy tale.