This story was also removed from the LA Times website this morning. Interesting.

Do they have dinner? If not, then nobody cares.

A man meeting with gay men in secret, I wonder why?

Are there any other kind?

McCain's just keeping it "on the down low."

I actually find that more insulting than not meeting at all. Spare me the niceties Senator, you with us or against us?

*crickets*

Thought so.

it isn't in a bathroom is it?

Diogenes: Spare me the niceties Senator, you with us or against us?

Were I an American this would also be my question.

darkyn: Diogenes: Spare me the niceties Senator, you with us or against us?

Were I an American this would also be my question.

Insincere patronizing is just as bad as calling me "the F word."

/not sure if that gets filtered

Ugh, Log Cabin Repubs. Self loathing hypocrits.

Gay Republican
Freshly Frozen
Living Dead
Icy Hot
Controlled Chaos
Jumbo Shrimp

Diogenes: not sure if that gets filtered

Unfortunately, it does not.

Diogenes: darkyn: Diogenes: Spare me the niceties Senator, you with us or against us?

Were I an American this would also be my question.

Insincere patronizing is just as bad as calling me "the F word."

/not sure if that gets filtered

Fabulous?

filth: Fabulous?

If only. I'm a distinctly unfabulous ghey.

A majority of his base would not approve of such meetings, but he knows that more moderate/liberal leaning independents would question the ignoring of the homosexuality issue.

If he meets with them, but doesn't publicize it...he doesn't piss his base off. But, if he's called out on not meeting, he can say "yes, huh!" and wave these meetings around.

Diogenes: If only. I'm a distinctly unfabulous ghey.

Me, too, but I am proud of my utter lack of fabulousness.

"I want your vote, but I don't want the many ignorant homophobes in my base to know I want your vote... You understand, right?"

This just shows that John McCain is willing to take a wide stance when it comes to addressing Gay Rights issues. But he has to be careful when reaching around his base to give Log Cabin Republicans back door access to his campaign. McCain's base has been known to be hard on gay issues in the past, so McCain is going to have to get them to relax and ease the plank of the gay rights into the greater Republican agenda.

Diogenes: I actually find that more insulting than not meeting at all. Spare me the niceties Senator, you with us or against us?

*crickets*

Thought so.

This. A thousand times, this. Now, if Sen. McCain picks a notable veep candidate that has a track record for being pro-gaysanity, like Crist, then MAYBE I'd cast my vote his way.

Right now, though, I staunchly support Obama. I don't need the "moral majority" in the White House.

To me the #1 issue on the 'homosexual agenda' is marriage equality.

And actually I think that McCain supports states rights on that issue, which is about as good a position as we're going to get.

bulldg4life: A majority of his base would not approve of such meetings, but he knows that more moderate/liberal leaning independents would question the ignoring of the homosexuality issue.

If he meets with them, but doesn't publicize it...he doesn't piss his base off. But, if he's called out on not meeting, he can say "yes, huh!" and wave these meetings around.

Clearly I have a biases opinion on this, but why should simply meeting with someone be construed as support of everything they believe? It's the appeasement nonsense again.

I'm not saying you're wrong about his base. I just think it's dumb.

vernonFL: And actually I think that McCain supports states rights on that issue, which is about as good a position as we're going to get.

Thanks to the 10th amendment, supporting a state's right on homosexual marriage pretty much makes all states have to recognize homosexual marriage if one of them does.

Code_Archeologist:

Thanks to the 10th amendment, supporting a state's right on homosexual marriage pretty much makes all states have to recognize homosexual marriage if one of them does.

Another option is to abolish government recognition of marriage altogether. That might be too radical right now.

Code_Archeologist: vernonFL: And actually I think that McCain supports states rights on that issue, which is about as good a position as we're going to get.

Thanks to the 10th amendment, supporting a state's right on homosexual marriage pretty much makes all states have to recognize homosexual marriage if one of them does.

14th amendment, I think. Equal protection under the law. I think the 10th amendment is the enumeration amendment (all rights not specifically enumerated to Congress, etc, fall to the states and the people).

Regardless, yes. What I find hilarious about conservatives is that Republicans *generally* are for states' and individual rights, and against the government butting into everyone else's business. These are planks from the platform that *I* remember. But, somewhere along the way, the "moral majority" co-opted the conservative agenda. And now, you've got the clusterfark that's the Republican Party of today.

Gun rights? Yes. State's rights? Yes. Individual rights? Sometimes. Doesn't make sense to me. I might be voting Republican if it weren't for that one thing (well, there are OTHER things, too). I can't trust Republicans because of it.

vernonFL: Another option is to abolish government recognition of marriage altogether. That might be too radical right now.

I feel that's a First Amendment thing. "Marriage" is in the context of churches. Civil unions (which a marriage is) is a legality that determines spousal rights, beneficiary rights in case of death, etc.

How do I know this to be true? Because marriages are traditionally held in CHURCHES (unless you elope).

So...abolishing marriage as a government thing (and calling them all, on the books, a 'civil union') is the government keeping itself separate from church (First Amendment). Gays having the right to be in a civil union (by a legal sense) is a 10th and 14th amendment issue. If a gay couple can get married in a church, that's just a bonus.

I know there are gays out there who don't want civil unions but MARRIAGES. Well, you CAN have marriages RIGHT NOW!!! They just won't be recognized as legal by many states. I could care less about semantics. Make it farking legal to be with whomever I want and give them spousal rights, etc, and you can call it a May Day Parade for all I care.

vernonFL: Code_Archeologist:

Thanks to the 10th amendment, supporting a state's right on homosexual marriage pretty much makes all states have to recognize homosexual marriage if one of them does.

Another option is to abolish government recognition of marriage altogether. That might be too radical right now.

The only real recognition that the government has of marriage is that of a contract between two people.

Code_Archeologist: The only real recognition that the government has of marriage is that of a contract between two people.

Exactly my point. And anybody should have the ability to form that contract with whomever they choose.

xanadian: 14th amendment, I think. Equal protection under the law. I think the 10th amendment is the enumeration amendment (all rights not specifically enumerated to Congress, etc, fall to the states and the people).

Right, the 10th amendment gives the states the power to choose how they give licenses (such as for marriage); Article IV, Section 1 (the full faith and credit clause) requires the states to respect the licenses given by other states.

Big deal... Republican politicians meet with gays all the time.

So did Larry Craig. How'd that work out for him?

Airport bathroom meeting ?

xanadian: This. A thousand times, this. Now, if Sen. McCain picks a notable veep candidate that has a track record for being pro-gaysanity, like Crist, then MAYBE I'd cast my vote his way.

Right now, though, I staunchly support Obama. I don't need the "moral majority" in the White House.

Forget about the White House, the most dangerous "moral majority" will be on the Supreme Court.

A vote for McCain is a vote to have the Supreme Court uphold DOMA for at least the next 20 years, barring a Scalia heart attack.

So if you're gay and you're fine with no prospect of ever getting equal treatment in most of the states in this country, vote for McCain.

Delusional but I can only imagine that the guilt and self-hatred would make for some pretty exquisite sex.

Courting the coveted toe-tapper vote, I see.

darkyn: Me, too, but I am proud of my utter lack of fabulousness.

I think my lack of fabulousness is one of my better qualities.

Locke3k: So if you're gay and you're fine with no prospect of ever getting equal treatment in most of the states in this country, vote for McCain.

Agreed -- not that I trust Obama will do anything to further the cause, I don't think he will harm it in the way McCain could.

They all agree not to have rights as long as their business deals all go through and generate plenty of kick backs. God bless America right on our collective sore butt hole.

Locke3k: xanadian: This. A thousand times, this. Now, if Sen. McCain picks a notable veep candidate that has a track record for being pro-gaysanity, like Crist, then MAYBE I'd cast my vote his way.

Right now, though, I staunchly support Obama. I don't need the "moral majority" in the White House.

Forget about the White House, the most dangerous "moral majority" will be on the Supreme Court.

A vote for McCain is a vote to have the Supreme Court uphold DOMA for at least the next 20 years, barring a Scalia heart attack.

So if you're gay and you're fine with no prospect of ever getting equal treatment in most of the states in this country, vote for McCain.


THIS

burndtdan: it isn't in a bathroom is it?

Wide stance???

This says it all.

GayRepublicans.org is not affilliated with the Republican party.

Link

Jesus built my hybrid: GayRepublicans.org is not affilliated* with the Republican party.

*though they are often employed as pool boys by Republicans.

McCain is also a closeted public toilet goblin?

Ceph: Agreed -- not that I trust Obama will do anything to further the cause, I don't think he will harm it in the way McCain could.

I expect Obama to provide support for repealing or restructuring DOMA so it's not so amazingly discriminatory (it depends on congress as to if this is feasible I suppose). Remember, a ton of people in California just became very aware of DOMA and they have their marriages to defend. The same-sex married voting block will become a viable minority in 4 years time.

I expect DADT to be repealed, one way or the other.

Looks like McCain likes the cock after all.

Larofeticus: Lindsey Graham

Charlie Crist

Code_Archeologist: vernonFL: And actually I think that McCain supports states rights on that issue, which is about as good a position as we're going to get.

Thanks to the 10th amendment, supporting a state's right on homosexual marriage pretty much makes all states have to recognize homosexual marriage if one of them does.

But only if the Defense Of Marriage act is repealed or declared unconstitutional, which, given the third-rail treatment by Congress and the makeup of the Supreme Court, is IMO pretty unlikely anytime soon.

burndtdan: it isn't in a bathroom is it?

Where else would one meet gays?

xanadian: Code_Archeologist: The only real recognition that the government has of marriage is that of a contract between two people.

Exactly my point. And anybody should have the ability to form that contract with whomever they choose.

Including multiple parties, so long as everyone involved is on the same contract.

Code_Archeologist: xanadian: 14th amendment, I think. Equal protection under the law. I think the 10th amendment is the enumeration amendment (all rights not specifically enumerated to Congress, etc, fall to the states and the people).

Right, the 10th amendment gives the states the power to choose how they give licenses (such as for marriage); Article IV, Section 1 (the full faith and credit clause) requires the states to respect the licenses given by other states.



Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

You stopped reading too soon.

"Gay Republicans?" Redundant headline is redundant.

If I could get time machine McCain, when he was running against Bush, I'd vote for him, and probably donate to him. He still wouldn't be perfect, but I felt he had more credibility then.

I don't disagree with every position he takes these days, but I don't know how long he's going to take that position.

I have a limited respect, or at least a recognition, of the need to move to the middle while trying to avoid alienating the base. These guys didn't start the trend, and everyone who has had the job they want did the same thing. We're getting what we deserve, unfortunately, we don't desrve much.

Obama's FISA vote is an issue for me. The Faith Based initiative isn't a problem, but I don't support the emphasis on faith based, I'm a bigger fan of effective.