Tag Archives: Republican

“An Open Letter To Gay Republicans”

by D Gregory Smith
"The Third-Term Panic", by Thomas Na...

Image via Wikipedia

From Asher Huey at  The Huffington Post :

Dear gay Republicans,

Rick Santorum’s surge and near-win in Iowa should be a wake-up call: your party hates you.

Let’s put economic and other issues aside for a moment; we can have a spirited debate about the backward GOP approach to taxes, the environment, and foreign policy another time. I don’t understand how you can look beyond the fact that a major portion of your party’s fundamental beliefs are that you are not equal.

This isn’t a minor issue within your party. The Republican Party platform calls for amending the United States Constitution to discriminate against you. Party officials actually want to use our country’s foundational document, which grants and extends rights and freedoms to people, to limit yours. But that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

…Your party has, as one of its major leading presidential candidates, a person who doesn’t think you should be able to serve openly in the military, who doesn’t believe that you can create a loving family, who thinks that your committed relationships are destroying the moral fabric of America. Your party has thrown you in the deviant pile. Your party has labeled you a sexual predator. Your party is afraid of you and does not incorporate your voice or believe in your dignity.

Read the rest here. 

Related articles

New Hampshire GOP’s On The Gays

by D Gregory Smith

Didn’t watch the New Hampshire Debate?

English: Logo from the television program The ...

Yeah, me neither. I thoroughly enjoyed the Twitterbate, though- the feeds of my Tweeps were hilarious. I was very busy watching reruns of The Big Bang Theory. But don’t think me completely irresponsible- I knew there would be some good summaries this morning. Here’s one of them.

Think Progress has compiled all of the candidates statements regarding LGBT persons/issues/paranoid persecution complexes into a single video. Fascinating viewing- especially if you’re a psychologist:

 

 

Related articles

After My Own Heart

by D Gregory Smith

A.J. Otjen, University of Montana Professor and 2010 GOP Congressional Candidate has an Op-Ed in the Missoulian that flies in the face of the arguments by Treasure State Politics about LGBT rights (see previous post) and takes on the Montana GOP’s Notorious Platform Plank:

Montana Republican Party

Image via Wikipedia

(The) Montana Supreme Court heard an appeal giving same-sex couples the protections that heterosexual couples enjoy. We should demand that our Republican leaders support this decision. But, the Montana Republican party platform says homosexual acts should remain illegal.

Apparently, the party that favors smaller, less intrusive government wants bigger, more intrusive government when it comes to our domestic arrangements. Three’s a crowd in the bedroom, folks.

Worse, the party line doesn’t fit with what most Republicans think. The latest Gallup poll says that 85 percent of Republicans want their candidates to focus on the economy, not social issues.

It will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to win general elections if party leaders try to block the Supreme Court ruling or this troubling clause stays in the Republican state platform. Almost two-thirds of independents supported legalizing same-sex marriage in a 2010 Gallup poll.

Anecdotal evidence from online posts shows thousands of voters saying they would vote Republican except for the GOP’s rigid stance on gay issues.

Almost one-third of Republicans supported legalizing same-sex marriage in the 2010 Gallup poll. Over 70 percent of 18- to 34-year-olds support legalizing same-sex marriage, up 16 percentage points from 2010. This “overwhelming” number in favor of marriage equality “makes the trend toward growing acceptance both clear and unstoppable,” says Jon Walker at Firedoglake. (emphases mine)


I am delighted and cautiously optimistic.

Of course I want her to be a bellwether, and having A.J. Otjen singing “The Times, They Are A-Changing” (with statistics) might be the wake-up call the Montana GOP needs. But will they hear it?

The Tea-Party Christianists seem to have a loud voice, if not large numbers- and the fact that this plank was “sneaked in” past the majority of delegates- as some maintain- doesn’t leave me with a helluva lot of faith in the process.

I want to believe it. I do. I like what she’s singin’, God bless her. It’s rational, reasonable, and backed by scientific data.

But I know a few people who’ll run to unplug the speakers as fast as they can. Especially because it’s rational, reasonable and backed by scientific data.

Sigh.

Stay tuned- and read the whole piece here.

Related articles

The Palinization Of The GOP

by D Gregory Smith
Buckley (right) and L. Brent Bozell Jr. promot...

Image via Wikipedia

“The headline on Democratic strategist Paul Begala’s recent Newsweek essay dodged subtlety: “The Stupid Party.”

“Republicans used to admire intelligence. But now they’re dumbing themselves down,” was the subhead.

Democrats couldn’t agree more. And quietly, many Republicans share the sentiment. They just can’t seem to stop themselves.

Republicans aren’t really stupid, of course, and Begala acknowledges this. But, as he also pointed out, the conservative brain trust once led by William F. Buckley has been supplanted by talk radio hosts who love to quote Buckley (and boast of his friendship) but who do not share the man’s pedigree or his nimble mind. Moreover, where Buckley tried to rid the GOP of fringe elements, notably the John Birch Society, today’s conservatives have let them back in. The 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference was co-sponsored by the Birchers.

Meanwhile, the big tent fashioned by Ronald Reagan has become bilious with the hot air of religious fervor. No one was more devout than the very-Catholic Buckley, but you didn’t see him convening revivals in the public square. Nor is it likely he would have embraced fundamentalist views that increasingly have forced the party into a corner where science and religion can’t coexist.”

The GOP will continue to be ridiculous as long as it courts the ridiculous…. Make sure and read the whole thing- it’s good.

Rehberg’s Ridiculous Healthcare Bill: Resurrecting Non-Science-Based Prevention Policies

by D Gregory Smith

Rehberg’s apparently not swayed by the people in his state affected by HIV. Nor is he swayed by science.

From The AIDS Institute:

 

“If ever passed, this spending bill would set back the progress we are making in preventing HIV and providing basic care and treatment for those who have HIV/AIDS in our country,” commented Carl Schmid, Deputy Executive Director of The AIDS Institute.

House Labor, HHS, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Denny Rehberg (R-MT) introduced a fiscal year 2012 spending bill that guts many programs, including health reform, and resurrects non-science based prevention policies.

Most disappointing is how the bill would impede prevention. Rehberg’s bill would cut by nearly $33 million funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention. This is despite an estimated 50,000 new HIV infections each year and over 230,000 people unaware of their infection. The U.S. government invests only about 3 percent of its HIV funding in prevention. The lifetime cost of caring and treating one person with HIV is approximately $360,000. In order to help achieve the goals of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy to reduce the number of new infections and increase testing levels by 2015, the President has proposed an increase of $57 million for HIV prevention in FY12.

On top of cutting CDC’s budget, the bill would ban federal funding of syringe exchange programs, a scientifically proven method to prevent HIV and other infections while not increasing drug use, and would resurrect failed abstinence only until marriage programs. Additionally, the bill would decimate the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program by cutting its budget from $105 million to $20 million, eliminate all Title X spending, which funds HIV testing programs for women, and the entire Prevention and Public Health Fund.

The House bill proposes to flat fund the entire Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, which provides care and treatment to over 550,000 low-income people with HIV/AIDS. It fails to address the crisis in the Ryan White AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP). There are currently over 8,500 people in nine states on ADAP waiting lists and over 445 people in six states who have been disenrolled from the program due to budget constraints and growing enrollment. The AIDS Institute and its partners have been advocating for an increase of at least $106 million. The President has requested a $55 million increase. In order to address the current wait list, an increase of approximately $98 million would be required.

Chairman Rehberg’s bill also prevents implementation of much of the Affordable Care Act, which once fully implemented, would both bring many people with HIV/AIDS into lifesaving care and treatment for the first time and help to prevent HIV.

The one bright spot in the bill is Rehberg’s proposal to increase medical research spending at the National Institutes of Health by $1 billion.

“While we realize we are living in very difficult fiscal times, this bill is not just about making difficult funding decisions, but about resurrecting many controversial policies that will never pass the Congress nor be signed by the President,” commented Michael Ruppal, Executive Director of The AIDS Institute. “As Congress finalizes its FY12 spending bill, The AIDS Institute will work with the House, Senate and the Administration to increase, rather than cut funding for prevention and adequately fund all parts of the Ryan White Program, including ADAP. Additionally, we will work to defeat all extreme policy riders.

The bill (HR 3070) has not been formally considered by the House Appropriations Subcommittee. The Senate Appropriations Committee already has passed its own version of the bill. Since Congress has not passed any spending measures, the government is currently operating under a short term continuing resolution.

This schmuck is completely unwilling to listen to facts- or to believe that HIV is in Montana, and it poses particular problems for his constituents. Maybe it’s time to educate him.

Call his office: (202) 225-3211

Reading The Unbelievable

by D Gregory Smith

You can do it here.

Thanks to Towleroad

Michele Bachmann, (Submissive) Theologian?

by D Gregory Smith

Michele Bachmann has championed the “Christian” cause, sprinkling her speeches with scripture and holy buzzphrases. But one in particular caught my ear.

During the Iowa Republican Debate, Bachmann was asked about whether she would be submissive to her husband. She slipped right out of her earlier statements (and any fundamentalist credibility) when she basically said, “in our house, submission means respect”.

But what did Paul mean when he wrote, “Wives, submit to your husbands as is fitting in the Lord” in his letter to the Colossians? Or Peter, when he wrote “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands…” in the First Letter of Peter?

It comes from the tradition which Paul amplified in his letter to the Ephesians:

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. (NIV) Ephesians 5.22-24

Pretty clearly not simple, mutual respect. Maybe another translation will help. Let’s try the King James:

22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Nope, still clearly hierarchical. Paul is speaking from a clearly patriarchal tradition here- one where the husband is the head of the family, the boss, the Pope, the King- those are the images he uses here.

And they are meant very specifically and clearly: wives are the subjects of their husbands, as the church is subject to Christ. As a serf is subject to a king. Not partner, not even helpmate. Subject.

Not that I think this is right, proper or correct. My understanding of Christian scripture is quite different- and I take an anthropological/interpretive approach- not a fundamentalist one. But if you’re going to proclaim to have fundamentalist Christian leanings- you have to be consistent. The first century church was a product of its time- patriarchy was all the rage- and I think we’ve evolved beyond it. Well, mostly. But if Michele Bachmann is going to quote scripture, she can’t just pick and choose what it means. She can’t back off of it and maintain any integrity with/for her Christian base.

But she did. And she has. And the media is letting her. CBS News:

AMES, Iowa – Appearing on “Face the Nation” Sunday, Rep. Michele Bachmann stood by her comment in Thursday’s Republican debate, insisting that when she said wives should be submissive to their husbands, she meant that married couples should have mutual respect.
In 2006, Bachmann said her husband had told her to get a post-doctorate degree in tax law. “Tax law? I hate taxes,” she continued. “Why should I go into something like that? But the lord says, be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.'”
Asked about the comment by CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell Sunday, Bachmann reaffirmed that to her, “submission means respect, mutual respect.”
“I respect my husband, he respects me,” she said. “We have been married 33 years, we have a great marriage…and respecting each other, listening to each other is what that means.”
O’Donnell asked Bachmann if she would use a different word in retrospect.
“You know, I guess it depends on what word people are used to, but respect is really what it means,” Bachmann replied.
“Do you think submissive means subservient?” O’Donnell asked.
“Not to us,” Bachmann said. “To us it means respect. We respect each other, we listen to each other, we love each other and that is what it means.”

Look at the story she uses to illustrate her point: Marcus Bachmann told her to get a degree in something she hated– and she did it because- according to a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture- she is his subject. She must submit to him. She later rejected this, saying it equals respect.

Well, maybe in the way a serf respects the King who holds power over him/her. But let’s keep looking. Hey! Maybe the dictionary will mention respect.

submissive
sub·mis·sive
–adjective
1.inclined or ready to submit;  unresistingly or humbly obedient: submissive servants.
2.marked by or indicating submission: a submissive reply.

Okay, that didn’t do much for her case, either. Hey, maybe the Greek will help! What was the word in the Bible the writers actually used? Maybe that means respect…

 “In the first instance, then, hupatassomai does not mean so much ‘to obey’—though this may result from self-subordination—or to do the will of someone but rather ‘to lose or surrender one’s own rights or will.136 In the NT the verb does not immediately carry with it the thought of obedience … 137

The idea implicit in the term is “to place under” (in the active voice).138 As it is found in our text, the idea would be, “to subordinate oneself” or “to place oneself under.” In general terms, submission is the placing of oneself under the one to whom we submit. Since we are commanded to submit ourselves one to another, we are to place all others above ourselves. (source)

Whoops. Even worse.
Sorry, Michele. Looks like if you want to maintain scriptural consistency- and your fundamentalist/evangelical/christianist street cred, you’re going to have to say submit, subject to, submissive, surrender.

Presidential words, indeed.