As Bill Clinton would say, there is a third way: it's called libertarianism. It rejects both the failed special interest, redistributionist politics of the left, and the new blind anti-constitutional majoritarianism of the right.

It's indeed possible for gays to be neither irrationally selfish nor irrationally self-loathing. In fact, it boggles my mind how reasonably intelligent and reasonably stable gays can be anything other than libertarians.

BTW, you'll notice that neither GayPatriot nor BoiFromTroy are on my blogroll.

Libertarianism has its good points, especially in terms of government intrusion. Being socially libertarian can be a good thing. But, I look at the AIDS crisis in the '80s as a point where the 'hands off' ideology of libertarianism would have cost many more lives. If we depended on the private community, as opposed to state sponsored support, the only ones that would have been able to save us, would be ourselves. And we were already dying. And it took enormous effort to get the government to respond, let alone private charities. That's how I can, as a reasonably intelligent and reasonably stable gay man, think that libertarian ideals aren't enough in some cases.

First off, I don't really agree with you or with GayPatriot. I am an associate (not so much a member) of LCR and I am also a supporter of HRC and sometimes the ACLU. So needless to say I am kind of all over the place with my beliefs, ideas and attitudes. Overall I would probably be defined as a Libertarian or a left leaning republican (social liberal/fiscal conservative states' rights guy). I think that the idea that "internalized homophobia" is more accurately described as "not conforming to gay stereo types or other masses of gay people." I like guns, football bores me, I've dressed in drag and I am neither a total top nor total bottom. I don't really like gay bars, I like lesbian bars and hanging out with any of my hetero or homo friends.

So what would you make of someone like me? Most flaming liberals don't like me because I don't conform to their ideas nor subscribe to their elevated states of emotion. At the same time, extreme conservatives would probably burn me at the stake if there were no legal consequences.

The problem is that you think all gay people should act one way, while GayPatriot thinks they should act another way. When in reality we are all over the place, but have one common goal...securing our equal rights under the law. Why can't we overlook our petty differences and help each other? I am ready to do that.

The Enlightenment was wrong, David. It failed us. While we've advanced in knowledge, we lag behind in ethics. Reasonable men died long ago...

Your criticisms of that thread are well taken. I've mostly stayed out of it, since I don't see much point in most of it.

But, you write: "Now we know that people are conservatives for genuine reasons. They might be rich, or slightly selfish. They may have been born into a conservative family or brainwashed by the conservative media. Sometimes there are points to the conservative agenda that even I agree with..."

Is it really so impossible for you to see, given the last sentence of that, that some other people might agree with quite a few points of the "conservative agenda" while rejecting the entirety of the religious right?

The first part of that paragraph could be copied right out of the pages of the Family Research Council listing reasons people might "choose" to be gay-- selfish, rich degenerates, been raised (or "converted) by gay parents, or brainwashed by the liberal media... and it's just as helpful for understanding a conservative person as the FRC's propaganda is for understanding a gay person.

Actually, I don't have any ideas about how gay people should act. Gay conservatives are the ones prescibing roles for how to act, ie. not effeminate. I simply think that everyone should be who they want to be. Period.

And I'm fine with the conservative agenda. Believe what you want, vote how you want. I just fundamentally disagree. My comments are mostly in jest, but who I'm really trying to challenge are the gay conservatives who think there's only one way to present ones gender, one way to be a man. I think it shows a profound anti-gay sentiment. And that's my argument, and their quotes back that up.

As Joe.My.God. said in his post-Pride blog (http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2005/07/watching-defectives.html)
"The part of straight America that is repulsed by drag queens is quite possibly even more terrified by the so-called 'normal' gays, because 'those clever calculating creatures look JUST LIKE US, and can infiltrate and get access to our precious children, and that's been their disgusting plan all along, of course'."

Don't think that being something other will make them love you. Be who you are and people will. Just maybe not the ones you were trying to impress.

Andy, John-

I basically agree with all of that.

"The problem is that you think all gay people should act one way, while GayPatriot thinks they should act another way. When in reality we are all over the place, but have one common goal...securing our equal rights under the law. Why can't we overlook our petty differences and help each other? I am ready to do that."
-David1369

No, the problem is that we do not have one common goal. It's pretty clear to me that gay conservatives who support Pres. Bush & the GOP in general, do not care about equal rights. This is the President and the party that supports writing discrimination against gays directly into the Constitution. I just don't understand how gay people can ignore that.

No, the problem is that we do not have one common goal. It's pretty clear to me that gay conservatives who support Pres. Bush & the GOP in general, do not care about equal rights.

Then you are mistaken. If you look at the mission of groups such as Log Cabin Republicans there is a strong push for personal liberty. The whole point of LCR is to promote that within the party. It is a relatively new position to deny people personal liberty. THis is because of the infestation of the Republican Party with the Christian Extreme. Should those of us who believe in Republican Principles abandon the party over this issue, or should we stand up and fight over it? Let's be realistic. Who are people within the party going to listen to? Gay people who are liberals and hate them anyways or gay people who are Republicans or Libertarians and don't start with the premise of "you suck."??? I honestly think that the reason Democrats/Liberals attack gay Republicans is because you would hate to see us succeed in changing the party, for if we did, you'd have a hard time taking back control of the country.

I think you're misconstruing some of my arguments. My assertion is about political positions, not a personal generality. For me, it is about honesty. I see the Republican party without the blindness of personal affection. I am very well aware of the religious elements who would limit personal freedoms. I do not agree with them and often say so. It is the praising of Democrats or even protection of them when they are objectively not gay supportive or gay friendly that I find irksome. Why the partisan protection for politicians that would never ever be extended to Republicans who hold the same beliefs and cast the same votes?

As I note in my blog's title, I'm a psuedo-conservative; i.e. not a Republican but someone who tends to agree more with the Republican party on a variety of issues. I believe many of those issues to be more important in the long run than the current wrestling over gay marriage.

That being said, I have no disdain for the personal choices of any homosexual. I spend more than a little time in Boystown, attend drag shows, like house and techno, have effeminate friends, etc.

Conservatism is not a repudiation of surface behaviors or fashion choices. Freedom of sexuality should mean we are all given a certain amount of respect to do with our lives what we will.

I think the current partisanship and marriage of gay issues to general Left-wing causes by the major gay rights organizations damages this goal, discredits all of us, and denies truth in favor of personal resentments.

That's my argument.

I think the best summation of the modern gay conservative movement comes in Paul Robinson's summation of Richard Goldstein in "Queer Wars":

Richard Goldstein's final verdict on Andrew Sullivan and the other gay conservatives is that they are engaged in a hopeless effort to win acceptance in straight society by jettisoning all the traditionally 'offensive' aspects of gay identity other than sexual orientation itself. In their desperate desire to fit in they are prepared to sacrifice the unmanly (and unwomanly) as well as the sexually dissolute. They are, Goldstein argues, very much like assimilated Jews in the nineteenth century, hoping that if they can look and act like gentiles they will be treated as equals. The enterprise is not only unsavory--in that it throws the sissies and the sluts to the wolves--but doomed to failure, because straight society, in Goldstein's view, will never rid itself of homophobia any more than Christian society ride itself of anti-Semitism. "Just as Jews could never be real Christians no matter how hard they might try, gays will always stand apart in a macho society...Receptive intercourse is inimical to macho, and as long as that's the case, men who take it up the ass or in the mouth will be treated with contempt...We will be penalized for our homosexuality no matter how ably we play the gender game." In other words, no matter how butch or how chaste, Andrew Sullivan [and the GayPatriot, I might add] will never enjoy the acceptance he so manifestly craves.

Aside from personal drives, another way in which the queercon movement fails is in its breaks with racial justice and gender equality. As Goldstein notes, in the society in which we live, where the trappings of femininity (taking a dick inside of you, talking in a high voice, displays of emotion) are somehow seen as less than their macho manifestations, gays will be the losers--not because they might talk in a high voice or be prone to bouts of emotion (many aren't), but because the very nature of their sexuality puts them at odds with the normal ideals of masculinity.

David, you are right on why some gay liberals like to bash gay conservatives.

Your response to the Gay Patriot only proves his argument. I have heard many, in fact the vast majority, of religious conservates say they could not care less about a person's sexuality. What they object to is the way some - on the left - continually force that lifestyle into the mainstream public. They may disagree with your lifestyle, but the vast majority of them have no problem with you living it. What they have a problem with - where you anger them- is that you are so pushy that they feel like you infringe upon their ability to raise their children in the manner they choose as parents. It goes against evertying you believe as liberal activists, but if you just shut up, sit back and stop ramming the gay agenda down the public's throat (no pun intended) you will have far more success at being accepted.

This is not about gender roles, stereotypes, masculinity or any of that college campus psychobabble. Talk about it if you want, but you're wasting time, it's not the point. This to them is an issue of family, of their right to raise their children. Until you can understand that, you will have no success.

Kevin-

Why is their right to raise their childern more important that my right to be who I am?

Until you understand that, you will continue to be a self-loathing homosexual.

Andy-

I THINK, what Kevin was trying to say is that you have the right to be whom ever you are. However, your right to be gay and okay with that, stops at the doors of a religous conservative's house. People should be able to raise their children with the values they choose, it should not be pushed upon them by gay activists nor the government. I think that's what he meant.

**note, this isn't necessarily how I feel** and as far as you calling him a self-loathing homosexual, it just shows your inherient intolerance of diverse opinon. Which is funny because that is exactly what you supposedly want to fight.

Thank you David for what you said, you are exactly right. Your right to be who you are has no standing inside anyone else's home.

I don't quite understand the self-loathing homosexual thing. I'm not homosexual and never mentioned anything regarding my own sexuality. Seems like unwarranted gay-bashing to even say or think that.

David,

I think, that Andy's point is that we aren't talking about the religious conservative's house. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn whether or not those religious nut-jobs accept me or not. I care about how the government treats me. The issues are marraige, equal protection against discrimination, and the right to serve openly in the military. Furthermore, any gay person who refers to us standing up and fighting for these issues as "ramming the gay agenda down the public's throat" is opening himself up to being called self-loathing.

As for the LRC, I wish you the best of luck in changing the party's stance on gays. (How's that working out for you?) The way I see it, as long as you keep supporting and voting for politicians who have anti-gay platforms then you give them no reason to change their stance.

Kevin,

My apologies for making blind assumptions.

But there you go assuming that I (and LCR) support the candidates who have anti-gay platforms. If you took a second to even assess the situation, rather than making blind statements like you are, you would realize the opposite is true. LCR withheld its endorsement of Pres Bush in the last election because of his poor record on gay rights. We are trying to bring down Michelle Bachmann, we opposed appointing judges who say they don't believe gay rights exist in the Constitution. So don't go around saying we support a platform that doesn't support us. LCR actively speaks out against Republicans who are weak on gay rights. Which is more than the Democrats can say. Hell that party won't even force its members to vote for gay rights, let alone call out those who openly oppose them. Where are you on the Tinklenberg issue? Why aren't you raising holy hell in that race? A democrat who supports a federal amendment banning gay marriage... how fucked up is your party to support someone who goes against your alleged platform to that extent. It just lends creedence to the fact that democrats don't really care about gay rights, all they care about are gay votes.

I don't think anyone in the gay community is pushing anything down anyone's throats. Show me one example of how religious people are being forced to do anything. Don't like gays on TV? Turn off the TV. Don't like your kids learning that homosexuality is a fact of life? Enroll them in private school. Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry someone of the same-sex. Want to discriminate against a GLBT employee? Move to Iran.

It's a free country for EVERYBODY. Just because some god-fearing asshole is holding onto an outdated verse in Leviticus and selectively interpreting the bible does not mean my freedoms should be curbed. They chose their religion. I didn't choose who to fall in love with.

And before you get upset with my name calling, let's not forget that this whole discussion started with people calling gay liberals flaming queens and children.

Andy,

That's fine, if you want to turn this into a race to the bottom, go right ahead. Like I said earlier, it won't help.

Take it from somebody on the inside of the otherside, who sympathizes with you: you are going about this all wrong and making it much more difficult for yourself.

If you don't want to listen, that's your problem.

Actually, a commenter in a comments thread made remarks about flaming queens. Nothing of the sort was central in mine nor GayPatriot's argument.

It's a comfortable myth that gay conservatives are merely internalized homophobes who loathe themselves to the core. It can't simply be we have different opinions. No, there must be a psychological dysfunction at the heart of it all, because we don't march in lockstep with the gay left. It's a completely juvenile way of thinking, so I'm seein my teenager assertion holding up pretty well at this rate.

There are certainly people with those kinds of issues on both sides. For every gay conservative who disdains effeminate men, I can point you to a gay liberal who does something ridiculous like call a speech "heteronormative." Because any discussion that is too "straight" for them gives them the heebie jeebies.

If I had to take an informal poll of the gay conservatives I know, I'd say 95% of them have few issues with most of gay culture. We go to Pride, hang out in drag clubs, have one night stands, like stereotypically gay music and theater, etc. etc. etc.

But we're conservative. And that's unmitigated evil. Oh no! So much for tolerance, eh? I suppose being supportive of personal choices only counts if the other person makes the choice you believe to be the correct one.

That's not at all adolescent either. Nuh uh. Pshaw.

David D raises an excellent point. Where are the gay liberals on Elwyn Tinklenberg the Federal Bachmann amendment supporting Democrat running for a contested seat? Gay Democrats do have another option in that race - Scott Mortensen:

http://www.scottymortensen.com

Give him a contribution - so that he can become a viable candidate.

Scott Mortensen supports gay marriage and isn't afraid to say so publically. Elwyn Tinklenberg supports using the constitution to marginalize gay citizens.

Should Tinklenberg get elected to congress (which is a decent possibility in that seat) as a Federal Bachmann amendment supporter, 2 out of the 5 US House Democrats in MN will support this amendment. Colin Peterson - another democrat - was an original co-sponsor of the FMA. Stephanie Herseth ran and won in South Dakota supporting this amendment. Now the DCCC is advising other democratic candidates (I've heard the advice to Tinklenberg comes from the DCCC) to support the Federal Marriage Amendment.

As far as Gay Patriot goes - if you read Gay Patriot, he went after Log Cabin Republicans because LCR took a principled stand and withheld endorsement from Bush. Gay Patriot isn't really that conservative. Rather Gay Patriot is about supporting Bush without criticism.

Dale Carpenter who writes for Independent Gay Forum, Kip Esquire, Dennis Sanders (moderaterepublican.blogspot.com) and others are all much more representative of mainstream gay moderate and conservative thought than Bruce Carroll aka GayPatriot.

To compare a conservative who disdains a sissie to a gay liberl who uses the term "heteronormative" is to compare apples and oranges--the two are not in the least bit comparable. "Heteronormative" is a term used within academia to critique certain discourses or behaviors that treat heterosexuality as natural and essential and homosexuality as abnoral and unnatural (it's a term that gay liberals do not own, and in fact has little use outside of the academy), while disdaining someone for being a sissy is a knee-jerk reaction to difference, a way of setting yourself apart from the sissie you are disdaining. The two don't lend themselves to a comparison.

You dismiss theories about internalized homophobia among conservatives as an oversimplified psychological explanation (someone else dismissed it as psychobabble) but seriously...what do you think your notion of liberals as adolescents is but oversimplified psychobabble?

Prism: I support your personal choices. I really do. I look at Eva who is a frequent commenter and someone I have collaborated with on various issues. She's lesbian, and conservative, and I respect that about her. But I haven't once seen her bash liberals in quite the same way that y'all do. And my post is merely a reaction to the posts circulated around the gay conservative blogs, and the reactions generated there in the comments.

And my reaction is founded in both the comments left over there, the comments left here, and the conversations I've had in the community. And it always comes down to stuff like this: don't shove homos down straight folks mouths, and liberal gays are too flaming.

Nothing I've read yet in these 26 comments has changed that. Everything has been about the 'poor victimized gay conservative. Noone understands us,' while at the same time condemning gay liberals for supporting the very elected officals THAT ACTUALLY OCCASIONALLY SUPPORT US. Let's weigh the options: A party full of fundamentalist christians who, with exception of just a few, would like to see gay people burn in hell, or a party of many different backgrounds, but with many people who actually respect you and your partners wishes. You will need to bend the very fabric of reality to tell me that a lot of conservatives don't vote against us.

That's not to say that I don't appreciate the good work that many gay people do in the Republican party, and the conservative movement in general. You're fighting an uphill battle. But don't tell me I'm too flaming, too 'intolerant,' or too immature to make that choice. I just choose to support the party that has actually done at least a little of something. If that makes me a moonbat, well then golly, I'm a moonbat.

Kevin:
"This is not about gender roles, stereotypes, masculinity or any of that college campus psychobabble."

For the gay-republicans Andy mentioned in his entry, it seems to to be exactly about gender-roles, stereotypes and masculinity.

I didn't see Andy making the claim that all religious conservatives repudiate homosexuality only because their notion of gender-roles or masculinity is offended. Infact, his post didn't mention "religious conservative" at all.

"I have heard many, in fact the vast majority, of religious conservates say they could not care less about a person's sexuality. What they object to is the way some - on the left - continually force that lifestyle into the mainstream public."

1) "Mainstream public" - you make it sound like a club that only the religious conservatives can belong to. Anyone has a right to express their views in the "mainstream public". I believe the first amendment guarentees that. Why should the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons have access to this public sphere, and not those they demonize?
By expressing views in "mainstream public", how exactly are we ramming our agenda down people's throats (pun intended)? As Andy said, they can turn off their tv's or, god forbid, change the channel to one of 3000 others, if they don't like what they're hearing.

"They may disagree with your lifestyle, but the vast majority of them have no problem with you living it. What they have a problem with - where you anger them- is that you are so pushy that they feel like you infringe upon their ability to raise their children in the manner they choose as parents."

I don't recall any glbt group ever advocating for the passage of laws or in any other way forcing religious conservatives to raise their children as they please. I have seen a host of religious conservatives clamoring to restrict glbt couples from raising their children as they please.

Its astounds me that this "vast majority" (is this a scientifically derived stat?) wants to paint themselves as the victims here.

"It goes against evertying you believe as liberal activists, but if you just shut up, sit back and stop ramming the gay agenda down the public's throat (no pun intended) you will have far more success at being accepted."

What goes against everything I believe is suicide rates being much higher among gay teens than normal teens, people blaming all sorts of natural calamities and terrorist acts on queers, queers not being allowed to visit their partners on their death beds, not being allowed to adopt or even, in some states, be foster parents, queers being discriminated against in their workplace, harrassed or beaten, sometimes to death, being told that "God" (not some specific manifestation of God that only some people believe in) himself looks upon them with disgust. Treating people like second class citizens or (oftentimes much) less because of their personal identities and choices that hurt no one goes against everything I believe in. And man, you're absolutely right, I'm not going to shut-up, sit back and watch that crap.

This last comment was posted by me.

I also want to ask, Kevin, that by saying:

"What they [religious conservatives] object to is the way some - on the left - continually force that lifestyle into the mainstream public"

Are you telling me that conservative queers and glbt advocacy groups like Andrew Sullivan and LCR, don't make public statements? If you are then, a) I think you're dead wrong and b) why doesn't this vast majority of religious conservatives take (undue) offense to them?

Last night, I meant to say that Eva was a moderate, not a conservative. Sorry Eva!

It's great to see this discussion continuing. I bumped it over to Eva a few days ago and she sent it out to one of our lists.

Haris said "why doesn't this vast majority of religious conservatives take (undue) offense to them[LCR etc]?:

The reason that religious conservatives don't take offense is because gay conservatives openly disagree with them, but usually do it in a respectful manner. We recognize that they have the right to believe gay rights should be limited and that the gay "lifestyle" is sinful. While I completely disagree with them on this point, I will defend to the end their right to say it. That is why they don't have undue offense to us. Most of my liberal leaning friends are of the opposite mind set, in that they think it is their job to try and change everyones' minds. There are some people we will never change, so why try? Why not focus our attention on the less extreme people who are prone to following logic? That is my goal.

David is once again correct. Like it or not, the gay community is defined by the most vocal of its members, and those are generally the most extreme. Like it or not, that's how most political groups are defined.

Look, you can take all this business about the religious right "owning" marriage and all that, fine. But as long as you let your message be delivered and defined by - to quote from another post - "go to Pride, hang out in drag clubs, have one night stands, like stereotypically gay music and theater, etc. etc. etc." that is how people will think of you and you will not achieve your goals. They view this lifestyle as a threat to the traditions of their family, religion and the culture of the country. Gay to them is synonomous with cultural deviance and destruction. Debate the right or wrong of that view, but that's how it is.

My message to you, as it has tried to be all along, is take back your message from the extremeists of your community. Until you are perceived as being part of the mainstream culture that has existed in this country for centuries, you will not get what you want. You can try and try and try but you will not change the moral and cultural fabric of this country - NEWSFLASH - they won't let you. You have got to play by their rules, or else you can't win the game.

Hate me, disagree with me, don't believe me, whatever...if you aren't willing to accept what I said then you aren't willing to truly address your "problem."

Great debate! Thanks to Andy for sparking a much needed conversation.

Personally, I'm a Fiscal Conservative and a Social Liberal. Neither party, at this time, appeals to me. The Republicans have let the Chrisitian Right and its agenda infilitrate their ranks and the Democrats will tell us anything we want to hear in order to get our votes (and then fail to deliver while somehow spending a wad of money doing nothing). Thus, with each election, local, state or federal, I have to look at each candidate's platform in its entirity and weigh the good against the bad. This means that I'm voting / positioning myself based on personal beliefs AND what I feel is best for the country as a whole.

I was raised by a pair of Air Force Officers in a very Republican household. No matter how hard I have tried to be a "good gay liberal", I still find myself siding many times with the Republican party on a variety of issues: strong military, fiscal responsibility, strength of state government, etc. These are values/ideals that I was raised with and quite frankly seem to be ingrained within me. My being gay will never change the way I was raised or the values I was brought up with. Trust me, I tried to be a bleeding heart liberal and failed miserably.

I think that there are many more GLBT's in the world that share similiar political views or life experiences as mine ... more so than those that are staunch conservatives or liberals. Rather than throwing accusations around or finger pointing, we should embrace the difference of opinions and look at what is best for the country as a whole while still looking to protect our rights and fight for equality.

In the past Presidential election, it pained me to NOT vote for Bush. I like the guy. BUT - the very fact that he and his campaign advisors deicided to placate the Christian Right at my and every other GLBT person's expense SICKENED me to no end. My rights are non negotiable. The fact that Bush calls himself a Republican and actually wanted to change the Constitution to make me a second class citizen? The man has lost his marbles ...

On the other hand, where in the world were the Democrats? In my opinion, they were doing their typical dog and pony show with regards to GLBT marriage, adoption, etc. Empty promises and rhetoric to gay audiences while brushing off the topics on a national level.

We definitely need to continue this dialog. Our future as GLBT's in the U.S.A. depends on an open presentation of opinions, etc. Unfortunately, there will never be a single gay agenda - and that is the major problem in any discussion we have with regards to a political direction to take. GLBT's exist in every socio-economic, education, etc. facet of our society. I highly doubt that a single person or organization will be able to get all of these people under the same roof and fighting for the same goals.

That being said, I'll respect your opinion. But, I'm still going to be the person that I am. And you should do the same. Its what makes our community such a pleasure to be a part of.

The religious conservatives do take offense. They take offense at any and all things unless you stay hidden in your closet and don't even think of daring to speak out. What people don't seem to understand is that you can take all the drag queens and leather people out and have nothing but clean, well dressed, well educated, respectable GLBT people at a Pride Festival and they would still take offense. Hate is just hate. To grow and spread hate you need a focus. So they point out things they think other people will take offense at and build and grow that hate in themselves and others. It has nothing to do with the Drag Queens or leather or any other. It's simply a means for them to hate and feel justified in doing so.

Kevin and David:

Thanks for your responses.

I think my "why do religious conservatives treat conservative glbt advocacy groups differently than they do liberal groups?" question was premature. Having never thought about this issue, I assumed that your claim, that religious conservative do not feel as threatened with glbt conservatives' agenda, was correct to begin with.

I was wrong.

After some online-reading, I (like james and other responders) am convinced that, those groups, religious leaders and politicians who oppose a pro-glbt agenda on religious or pseudo-religious grounds do so regardless of whether a conservative or liberal group is advocating for that agenda.

One need not go further than the LCR website itself to see this. There is a whole page dedicated to denouncing the more radical right-wing groups' views on glbt-rights. LCR obviously feels their work is under attack by the "radical right", a substantial part of which is certainly constituted by radical religious conservative (and very popular) leaders.

I agree that these leaders and their groups often use the term "left-wing" as a battle cry for opposing glbt-equality measures. But these same people still oppose conservative glbt groups' work just as vehemently.

Marriage, for example, is a very normalizing institution, in my view. What could be more "normal" than adam and steve marrying, adopting a labrador and livng behind a picket fence? The LCR is all for gay marriage. Yet religious conservative groups become apoplectic at the thought. I've yet to see a religious conservative group say otherwise.

Religious conservatives may hate left-wing glbt groups, but they seem to treat conservative glbt groups as if they are simply invisible. Pure assimilation is nothing more than invisibility. "Playing by their rules" is nothing more than invisibility. No social resistance movement ever got anywhere by striving to be invisible.

Mike, I enjoyed reading what you had to write and agree with you on many points.

PS: David, I have yet to meet any left-wing glbt group that would restrict religious right groups from saying exactly what they want to. Yet when glbt-groups advocate for their rights in public, many a right-wing group complains about the glbt agenda being rammed down their, and their children's, throats.

This is a very interesting thread to me. I have always believed that a gay person could be either liberal, conservative, or any other political persuation. Just as any other group in society also may be. Now, I'm not gay, but I'm just telling you about my perceptions. I believe that most of you would call me liberal, and I am also a father, and a Christian. I have never once, thought gay people represented any threat to my children, or my Christianity. And I don't view you as "sinners". I do however feel your pain regarding the religious right's hijacking of your party. As a liberal politician- albeit a new one- I am by far more comfortable with a Republican Party guided by true conservatism, than it's current state of being hijacked by the religious right. Then at least we liberals may be able to sit down and reason with you, rather than being constantly faced with unbending religious doctrine being driven into public policy. So, on that note you have my sympathy. I mean we have the religious fanatics over here too now, and as a Christian they scare the hell out of me. I feel they represent a huge threat to religious and sexual freedom in our nation. Because when you merge religious doctrine with public policy, the end result is state authorized religion, and obviously, what if it's not yours, ultimately leading to religious persecution. I commend Log Cabin for fighting the battle in the Party. I actually admire your courage to stay with your political beliefs even in the face of such an insidious attack. But over here the movement is growing too. The interesting thing about it is, they are the scariest and most vicious element of the party in my book. (either party) Scott

Scott Mortensen is running for DFL endorsement in the 6th district. So far the leading DFL candidate, Elwyn Tinklenberg has said he supports the Federal Marriage Amendment. Apparently the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee advised him to support this.