Log Cabin Republicans: Gay Racism (original) (raw)

Are LGBTQ Republicans Similar to Jews for Hitler?

LGBTQ Nation, 2022

Social movements rarely if ever can be viewed as monolithic. Members and segments of these movements often have variant views and advocate different, sometimes opposing, strategies to achieve their goals. To highlight this point, I offer two organizations, one historical and one current: the Association of German National Jews and the Log Cabin Republicans.

Black Republicans: A Minority within a Minority

Black Republicans: A Minority within a Minority, 2016

Introduction: Black Republicans . 1 The Literature on Black Republicans 5 A History of the Relationship between the Republican Party and Black Americans 9 • The Birth of the Republican Party, the Fight to Halt the Expansion of Slavery, and the Emergence of Black Republicans (1850-1893) • From McKinley to Hoover: An Era Marked by Black American Frustration with the Republican Party (1897-1932) • Black Americans’ Migration away from the Party of Lincoln to the Party of the New Deal (1932-1956) • The Result of Barry Goldwater’s Candidacy: A White Man’s Party (1964) • The Emergence of Black Conservatism and the Further Dissolution of the Black American Vote (1980-2016) Contemporary Representations of Black Republicans in the Media 29 The Black Republican Interviewees: An Introduction 34 Why Choose the Republican Party? 37 • Always a Republican • The Epiphany • Gradual Transformation • Contrarianism Perceptions of Black Republicans 46 Varieties of Black Republicanism: The Issues 50 • Abo...

The White House and LGBTQ Lobbying

LGBTQ Lobbying in the United States , 2021

Introduction What does it mean as a lobbyist on LGBTQ issues to disrupt power in one of the three houses of power in the United States? The Office of the President. LGBTQ lobbying of the White House means you have the opportunity to be the most disruptive to the way power returns to the powerful, to enact the most uncomfortable tactics and the hardest “asks.”To center the largest population of the marginalized. Working at the federal level, lobbyists seek to change the world, from the Presidency of the United States of America. This is an affirmatively U.S.-centric analysis, but it is no small thing to lobby for or against arguably the most powerful political office in the world.Yet, it also underpins the greatest pressures to conform, the enticement to compromise, and the promise of power. This chapter will note the importance of governance to LGBTQ rights and address the three asks on LGBTQ issues that have been made while I was working as the first lobbyist for the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (Neff & Edgell, 2013). I will use as research, those narratives that emerged from my time working with White House staff and use stories as data to highlight the role of LGBTQ lobbying. Through much of this chapter,“don’t ask, don’t tell” is used to motivate the analysis. I begin this chapter at the end of the political story: the President of the United States, Barack Obama, was mad. I could tell. I had seen a lot of speeches from “no drama Obama.” But this was drama. It was April 19, 2010. Eight months and one day until President Obama would sign the legislation to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.” He was on stage with Senator Barbara Boxer at a re-election rally in California. But a heckler wanted to push Obama on gays in the military (Good, 2010).The President heard the heckler yell,“Repeal Don’tAsk,Don’tTell!!”He replied from the podium: We are—we are going to do that! Hey! Hold on a second.We are going to do that! So, let’s ... Alright, guys, guys. Alright. I agree! I agree!! I agree!!! No listen. No, no, no.What the young man was talking about, was, we need to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Which I agree with. And which we have begun to do. I had never seen the President so frustrated or mad publicly. Obama had pushed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, raised the issue during his State of the Union Address (Goldman, 2010), and moved to stop discharges without the approval of Generals (Emanuel, 2015). He had done more than any President in history to ensure gays, lesbians, and bisexuals could serve in the U.S. military. But here, he was getting yelled at on an issue that was before Congress, not him. So, he was mad. I wrote a piece in April 2010 in response to the Barbara Boxer fundraiser: So, I have a suggestion for our next direct-action. Next time we want to inter- rupt the President, I think we make sure to shout this: President Obama— Thank you.We hope you will join us during this Pride season,because we are very proud of you too. Being a lobbyist means you deliver political packages no matter what. I had spent eight years working professionally on the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” It was my job to wrap the issue like a Christmas package and deliver it to the President of the United States.To push when they need to be pushed and put on a bow when it’s time to put on bows.This included making sure the bill was written and framed in the right way, that it was supported by the White House, that it was a stand-alone bill that could pass Congress, and that the President felt the support of the LGBTQ community. All of these elements were part of getting “don’t ask, don’t tell” right. It was both legislative and emotional. And so here I was, advocating for a “thank you.”To let a pissed-off President know the LGBTQ community appreciated him. Months went by. But in December 2010, the bill to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” passed the U.S. Congress (Neff, 2016).And a few days later President Obama would sign the legislation. Despite my issues with President Obama on “don’t ask, don’t tell” (and there are many), it was important for me that the process that followed included healing some of the wounds from the fight over “don’t ask, don’t tell.” I personally had battled with White House staff.The activist community as a whole had really heckled the President hard. So, when I was invited to the signing ceremony for the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” I had made a decision that I was going to try and be supportive, to see what I could do to try and frame the signing ceremony as a giant thank you to the President. But there was a lot of history building up to this. I stood in line outside the Department of Interior, where the signing ceremony was held, with LGBTQ White House Liaison Brian Bond and the legendary LGBTQ rights activist, and Air Force veteran Dr. Frank Kameny.We waited for the doors to open on a cold December day. We were led into a great hall with 700 seats.This historic day would be a cele- bration. A number of speakers came out and stood at the podium, and then it was time for the President.There were dignitaries on stage, such as Zoe Dunning, who had done so much. Eric Alva, Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, and the President walked across the stage and greeted each other.The crowd began to chant, “Yes, we did!”“Yes, we did!”Then the President approached the microphone. I was sitting in the second row next to Andy Tobias, the DNC Treasurer: President Obama: “Yes we did.Thank you. I, uhm—” me: “Thank you, Mr. President!” President obama: “You are welcome!” I had stood up to shout at the President. He had looked at me and replied. I sat back down.We had come full circle.The job of a lobbyist.To make sure the President felt appreciated. In fact, I thought it was important that this be yelled at the President because he’d been yelled at so much about the need for repeal. The New York Times reported it this way: He looked relaxed and upbeat as he soaked up the energy from an enthusi- astic crowd. For the gay rights movement, which has been frustrated with the pace of progress under Mr. Obama,Wednesday marked a celebratory turning point. “Thank you, Mr. President!” someone shouted, as Mr. Obama took the stage. (Stolberg, 2010) And my job was done.

Political Ideology and Racial Homogamy

What explains the relative persistence of same-race romantic relationships? One possible explanation is structural-this phenomenon could reflect the fact that social interactions are already stratified along racial lines-while another attributes these patterns to individual-level preferences. We present novel evidence from an online dating community involving more than 250,000 people in the United States about the frequency with which individuals both express a preference for same-race romantic partners and act to choose same-race partners. Prior work suggests that political ideology is an important correlate of conservative attitudes about race in the United States, and we find that conservatives, including both men and women and blacks and whites, are much more likely than liberals to state a preference for same-race partners. Further, conservatives are not simply more selective in general; they are specifically selective with regard to race. Do these stated preferences predict real behaviors? In general, we find that stated preferences are a strong predictor of a behavioral preference for same-race partners, and that this pattern persists across ideological groups. At the same time, both men and women of all political persuasions act as if they prefer same-race relationships even when they claim not to. As a result, the gap between conservatives and liberals in revealed same-race preferences, while still substantial, is not as pronounced as their stated attitudes would suggest. We conclude by discussing some implications of our findings for the broader issues of racial homogamy and segregation.

The election of Democrats alone is not enough to ensure gay rights

2014

Although Congressmen are elected to represent their districts and states, they will occasionally defy majority opinion to support the rights of a minority group. Drawing on data from House Democrats that voted against the popular Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Benjamin G. Bishin and Charles Anthony Smith determine that favorable district composition, membership in the Congressional Black Caucus, and competitive elections were associated with opposition to DOMA. They conclude that the difficulty of passing legislation to protect minority rights leaves the courts as the best option for such advancement.

Minority Group Interests and Political Representation: Gay Elected Officials in the Policy Process

Of key importance to groups in a democracy is the political representation of their interests in the policy process. The most obvious strategy of groups to achieve representation is to elect officials that identify with group interests. Our research examines the political representation of lesbian and gay interests, exploring the influence of openly gay elected officials on domestic partner policies. Based on the literature, we select and operationalize variables that may influence policy adoption. Analysis on a dataset of 270 localities suggests that elected gay officials are an important determinant for achieving substantive political representation. Our findings also suggest that supportive non-gay elected officials can effectively represent gays in the policy process.

Partisan values and gay rights: Public opinion about employment nondiscrimination

Politics, 2019

Partisan elites justify policy positions by invoking underlying values, and political parties are associated with value reputations that connect particular values to specific policy positions. Value recruitment theory explains the relationship between value framing and policy positions. Newspaper content analysis and statistical analysis of survey data show that Democrats are more likely to frame employment nondiscrimination against gay rights as an equality issue, while Republicans are more likely to frame it as morality-and capitalism-based values. Surprisingly, however, equality framing has a stronger effect on Republicans. The study extends research on nondiscrimination in employment with an empirical test of value recruitment theory. The results largely confirm expectations that the application of values can be shaped through citizen attachment to parties, generate insights into value recruitment in policy debates, and point to other questions for further analysis.

They Don't Want to Cruise Your Type: Gay Men of Color and the Racial Politics of Exclusion.

Despite the civil rights dialogue used by the gay community, many 'gay' organizations and members of the 'gay' community continue to exclude men of color from leadership positions and 'gay' establishments, thus continuing to add to the notion that 'gay' equals 'white'. Likewise, gay men of color experience homophobia within their racial and ethnic communities. In this paper, I discuss both the subtle and the blatant forms of racial exclusion practised in the 'gay' community as well as the homophobia found in racial and ethnic communities to examine how such practices affect gay men of color, particularly their self-esteem and their emotional well-being.