NC GOP's Log Cabin Discrimination

Homosexual Republican Group
Barred From NC GOP Convention
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
May 20, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - The North Carolina Republican Party is refusing to let the Log Cabin Republicans set up a booth at this weekend's state convention -- a move that has prompted complaints from the homosexual group that says it stands for "fairness, inclusion, and tolerance in the GOP."

"Log Cabin Republicans believe that at a time when our country is at war, we ought to be bringing Republicans together, not dividing them, and certainly not excluding them from their own state convention," said Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director Patrick Guerriero in a statement on the group's website.

Ed Farthing, a North Carolina Log Cabin Republican, said he purchased a table at the NC state convention on behalf of the group in early April.

But N.C. GOP Chairman Ferrell Blount recently returned the money, along with what the Log Cabin Republicans called "a lengthy vitriolic letter" that said the group could not have a table after all.

"To flip-flop and refuse to allow loyal Republicans a seat at their own convention is petty and short sighted," Farthing said in the statement on the Log Cabin website.

Blount's letter reportedly said that "homosexuality is not normal and should not be established as an acceptable 'alternative' lifestyle." He also said the North Carolina Republican Party and the Log Cabin Republicans "do not seem to share the same agenda."

At their state convention this weekend, N.C. Republicans will vote on a platform that opposes same-sex marriage, the adoption of children by homosexuals, and taxpayer-funded benefits plans for unmarried partners, The Advocate reported.

"We believe that homosexuality is not normal and should not be established as an acceptable 'alternative' lifestyle either in public education or in public policy," the proposed platform says.

The Log Cabin Republicans support same-sex marriage and have criticized President Bush for backing a Federal Marriage Amendment.

Beyond the marriage issue, the group says it also believes in low taxes, limited government, strong defense, free markets, personal responsibility, and individual liberty. "We also believe all Americans have the right to liberty, freedom, and equality," the website says.

The group said it wonders how Chairman Blount "can claim to represent the Republican Party and not share this agenda."

Chris Barron, Log Cabin's political director and a North Carolina native, accused Chairman Blount of dividing the GOP at a time when he should be uniting it: "Real issues face North Carolinians today...Our party should be talking about taxes, the war on terror, securing our children's future, and protecting North Carolina's economy," Barron said.

"With an important governor's race this fall, with a key senate race this fall, and with the balance of power in North Carolina's legislature up for grabs, the chairman of the North Carolina GOP should stop dividing Republicans," concluded Barron.

The Log Cabin Republicans reportedly have complained to the White House, to U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole, and to other Republican leaders about being excluded from the N.C. State Republican Convention, which begins on Friday.

Log Cabin Republicans describes itself as "the nation's largest organization of Republicans who support fairness, freedom, and equality for gay and lesbian Americans."

[jesus marion joseph]

Here in Massachusetts our governor and his anal-retentive general counsel, Dan Winslow, are working overtime trying to figure out ways to nullify the gay marriages that have begun to take place in the wake of the SJC's decision six months ago.

There is a law on the books here that was originally enacted (in 1903) in an effort to thwart interracial marriages. It states that if your home state does not recognize your marriage, then it is illegal to marry in Massachusetts. The state senate has passed legislation to repeal the law, but the governor today culled eight gay marriage applications in which one of the partners admitted to having no established links to Massachusetts. He has passed them along to the attorney general for "enforcement" under the aforementioned statute. He has also mentioned that he would veto the repeal if it makes it to his desk.

So we have the possibility of having the Republican governor support legislation that has not been enforced for decades, the intent of which was to deny people access to marriage if their relationship was interracial.

Nice.

[bostontricky]

JMJ, you can add some additional irony points to Romney's grandstanding. A letter to the Globe this morning reminded readers Romney had serious questions considering the status of his residency prior to his election.

Double nice.

[Dennis Gonzalez]

I'm not at all surprised that the GOP - any branch of it - would pull this kind of shit, and I don't think anybody here would be either. After all, this is the party that promised a Kinder, Gentler Nation a few years back. We don't hear those words much anymore, do we?

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by bostontricky

JMJ, you can add some additional irony points to Romney's grandstanding. A letter to the Globe this morning reminded readers Romney had serious questions considering the status of his residency prior to his election.

Double nice.

By God, I had forgotten about that.


Shannon whatsherface must be eating her heart out right about now.

[Pete C]

My heart bleeds for those gay republicans.

[Tanager]

This is hardly newsworthy, sadly enough. The GOP in NC (as it is throughout the South) is hardly the "moderate" wing of the party (Jesse Helms is still pretty highly revered). I wish Farthing the best of luck, frankly, but he's got a tough row to hoe.

I do note that both Chapel Hill and Carrboro passed resolutions officially condemning the state's position against gay marriages, which I thought was pretty spiffy of both.

[vibes]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

Here in Massachusetts our governor and his anal-retentive general counsel, Dan Winslow, are working overtime trying to figure out ways to nullify the gay marriages that have begun to take place in the wake of the SJC's decision six months ago.

Considering Romney's religion, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. When it comes to homosexuality, Mormonism is quite possibly the least tolerant of all Christian sects . Romney is only doing that which he believes to be right from a moral standpoint, and I wouldn't expect him to change any time soon, regardless of what laws may have been passed or rulings may have been handed down from the courts.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by Tanager

This is hardly newsworthy, sadly enough. The GOP in NC (as it is throughout the South) is hardly the "moderate" wing of the party (Jesse Helms is still pretty highly revered). I wish Farthing the best of luck, frankly, but he's got a tough row to hoe.

I do note that both Chapel Hill and Carrboro passed resolutions officially condemning the state's position against gay marriages, which I thought was pretty spiffy of both.

Yay, Chapel Hill and Carrboro! I know a tireless progressive activist in Pittsboro; I wonder whether there's any hope of getting such a resolution passed there.

Along with Pete, my heart bleeds for the Log Cabin Republicans--not. I keep waiting for such folks to decide that their identity as gays is more essential than their identity as Republicans and that the Republican Party merits neither their support nor their efforts, presumably, to transform it from within.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

I keep waiting for such folks to decide that their identity as gays is more essential than their identity as Republicans and that the Republican Party merits neither their support nor their efforts, presumably, to transform it from within.

For some people greed talks louder than libido.

[Uli]

I think Log Cabin Republicans are not Republican enough. Being Republican is not just a lifestyle. It demands blind trust in the leadership.

[Al in NYC]

I've always thought that being a gay Republican in these times is roughly analogous to being a black Klansman. I have never understood why anyone would want to be member of a party that not only disapproves of them, but would like to make (or keep) criminal actions that make up a core part of their being. So I find it kind of hard to feel sorry for the N.C. Log Cabin Republicans, since IMO they've just run into a blunt truthful statement of the bigotry, hate, closed-mindedness, and lack of respect for individual rights that their party actually stands for.

Thank GOD there are no hateful, closed minded bigots with no respect for individual rights in the Democratic party.

Yes, I also have difficulty understanding why any minority would be a member of a political party that so decidedly is bigoted.

[Slurpy]

What's all the fuss about? Don't all Republicans know that God has already said (to Pat Robertson) that Bush will win in a landslide?

I for one would be perfectly happy to entertain evidence of this "decidedly bigoted" Republican party.

Gee, how long shall I hold my breath.....................?

[tippy]

Okay, Scott, how's this--a proposed constitutional amendment that discriminates against homosexual citizens. Or how about banning Gay republicans from the convention. Geez, if you have to ask...

Originally Posted by Slurpy

What's all the fuss about? Don't all Republicans know that God has already said (to Pat Robertson) that Bush will win in a landslide?

Perhaps someone clued them in to the fact that--like Saddam--God has several doubles, and the promise different things to different people.

[RBS]

Originally Posted by Pete C

My heart bleeds for those gay republicans.

Yeah, both of them.

[Al in NYC]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

I for one would be perfectly happy to entertain evidence of this "decidedly bigoted" Republican party.

Gee, how long shall I hold my breath.....................?

Is this like arguing with a wall, or what?

Scott, read post #1. Oh here, I'll save you the trouble:

(N.C. Republican Party Chairman) Blount's letter (denying the Log Cabin Republicans a booth at the convention) reportedly said that "homosexuality is not normal and should not be established as an acceptable 'alternative' lifestyle." He also said the North Carolina Republican Party and the Log Cabin Republicans "do not seem to share the same agenda."

At their state convention this weekend, N.C. Republicans will vote on a platform that opposes same-sex marriage, the adoption of children by homosexuals, and taxpayer-funded benefits plans for unmarried partners, The Advocate reported.

"We believe that homosexuality is not normal and should not be established as an acceptable 'alternative' lifestyle either in public education or in public policy," the proposed platform says.

...you can stop holding your breath now.

Whatever Al.

I'm not saying that there aren't a bunch of closed minded freaks out there. But they reside in both parties.

[bluenoter]

Woo hoo! This is big locally, and I hope it's a sign of the times. We have only two Republican city councilmembers--Catania and Schwartz--and they're both acting up in opposition to the Bush administration.

Catania Leaves D.C. GOP Over Convention Seat

Ouster as Delegate Tied To Opposition to Bush

By Vanessa Williams
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 28, 2004; Page B01, Washington Post

D.C. Council member David A. Catania said yesterday he has left the local Republican Party organization after its chairman stripped him of his delegate seat at the national convention because he opposes President Bush's reelection.

Catania, a lifelong member of the GOP and openly gay political activist, raised more than $50,000 for the Bush campaign in the past year but became a vocal critic after Bush called for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Carol Schwartz, the other Republican on the 13-member council, resigned as a delegate to the convention in protest of Catania's banishment.

Catania, in an interview, said he would have fulfilled his obligation and voted for Bush at the Republican National Convention in New York, "but I have no intention of supporting him in the general election."

"I have to look in the mirror and say, 'Are you at home behind your eyes supporting a person who would write discrimination into the Constitution?' There is simply no way I could rationalize that," Catania said.

The council member, who won his at-large seat in a special election in 1997, said he has not decided whether to change his party registration. "I would never change my principles, but I don't have to hang out in this crowd. There is such a thing called an independent," he said.

Betsy Werronen, chairman of the D.C. Republican Committee, acknowledged that she declined to certify Catania as a delegate to the nominating convention because he had said publicly that he would not support Bush for reelection. The D.C. delegates were chosen at a party caucus in February.

"David is our shining star," she said, "and we hoped that we could work out this thing. But at the end of the day, David does not support the reelection of the president, and so for me to be honest to myself, I can't certify that he does."

Catania, 36, said he raised $70,000 to $80,000 for Bush's reelection, earning him membership in the exclusive club of big-time fundraisers for the president. Catania was designated a "Maverick" -- people younger than 40 who raise at least $50,000. But he said he has asked the campaign to remove his name from the list.

Terry Holt, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, declined to comment on the dispute between Catania and the D.C. GOP and would not respond to Catania's criticism of the president. He said most voters will support Bush on such issues as "strong national security and a vibrant, prosperous economy," suggesting that "values issues" would not play a big role in voters' decisions. Asked about voters for whom the gay marriage issue is important, Holt said, "We would hope to win their support on the broad range of issues that unite all Republicans."

Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of gay GOP activists, called Catania's break with the party "a great loss . . . and what it is for us is another very harsh reminder of the fact that the effort to amend the United States Constitution is causing a culture war within the GOP."

He said other party activists are "agonizing over a thoughtful way to handle being delegates."

"Our organization will be in New York in record numbers and will do our best to let the Republican Party know we're not going to go away," Guerriero said.

Catania will be replaced in the 19-member D.C. delegation by Carl Schmid, another openly gay political activist, Werronen said. Schmid, who has worked on Catania's campaigns, said he was "in an awkward position" but will go to the convention and cast his ballot for Bush.

"David is my friend, and I opposed what [Werronen] is doing to David. I'm not happy with the president," he said. "But I do think it's important for a gay person to be there and to speak out."

Schmid also said Catania "perhaps did go too far at first" in hinting that he would work to defeat Bush in the fall.

Catania said yesterday he cannot support Bush any longer. "In 2000, I supported a person who said, 'I am a compassionate conservative and a uniter, not a divider,' " he said. "Now he's decided, 'I'm not a uniter.' He picked an issue that is driving a wedge within the American family and is using it for crass political purposes. You don't hear much anymore about compassion in the White House."

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Chris A

The Log Cabin Republicans support same-sex marriage and have criticized President Bush for backing a Federal Marriage Amendment.

Beyond the marriage issue, the group says it also believes in low taxes, limited government, strong defense, free markets, personal responsibility, and individual liberty. "We also believe all Americans have the right to liberty, freedom, and equality," the website says.

If the Log Cabin Republicans accept straight members, I'm in. The Republican party is truly split between free enterprisers and social conservatives with very few belonging to both camps.

Speaking of bigotry against gays, did anybody read Wednesday's Andrew Sullivan blog entry? Sullivan is a gay writer who embodies Log Cabin Republican principles.

Originally Posted by Andrew Sullivan dot com

THE PLIGHT OF GAY MUSLIMS: It's grim, of course. Radical Islamism hates only Jews more than homosexuals. And the mullahs best even John Derbyshire in their bigotry:

Dr Muzammil Siddiqi, director of the Islamic Society of North America, says "homosexuality is a moral disease, a sin, a corruption… No person is born homosexual, just as nobody is born a thief, a liar or a murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education." Sheikh Sharkhawy, a cleric at the prestigious London Central Mosque in Regent’s Park, compares homosexuality to a "cancer tumour." He argues "we must burn all gays to prevent paedophilia and the spread of AIDS," and says gay people "have no hope of a spiritual life." The Muslim Educational Trust hands out educational material to Muslim teachers – intended for children! – advocating the death penalty for gay people, and advising Muslim pupils to stay away from gay classmates and teachers.

What staggers me is how silent the gay establishment is about these obscenities. If a religious right figure had said them, there would be hell to pay. But the multi-culti left still has a stranglehold on official gay discourse and won't condemn Islamist bigotry. Why not? These mullahs are fanning the flames of anti-gay violence with literally incendiary rhetoric. Burn gays? Yep, that's what the cleric said.

[crawjo]

The actions of the NC GOP are despicable. I don't believe they represent "all Republicans" since there are plenty of Republicans who are against the whole constitutional amendment/gay-bashing agenda that has unfortunately taken hold in parts of the GOP. What I do think, however, is that the GOP is going to be hurt badly by this in the long run. A wide majority of people in my generation are against the constitutional amendment. The biggest support for it comes from the elderly, according to polls. In 20 years I think that gay marriage will be a fact of life and opposition to it will be a clear minority. And people are going to remember that the GOP was on the wrong side of this issue.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by crawjo

A wide majority of people in my generation are against the constitutional amendment.

Crawjo, you are factually incorrect.

Poll on constitutional amendment

[crawjo]

Too bad they don't cite specific numbers for the age issue. They say that a smaller majority of young Americans support the constitutional amendment than older Americans, but they don't give numbers for either.

This poll is also not at all consistent with others that I have seen.

[crawjo]

I don't think this one breaks it down by age, but this, more recent Gallup poll paints a very different picture. It finds that support for gay marriage is now at the highest point in history.

[crawjo]

And here's a poll from April that says that Americans aged 18 to 29 oppose the constitutional amendment by a margin of 58 to 30 percent.

[Ron Thorne]

Hey Gordon, what are the odds that your poll is more accurate than crawjo's examples?

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by crawjo

And here's a poll from April that says that Americans aged 18 to 29 oppose the constitutional amendment by a margin of 58 to 30 percent.

I guess it depends somewhat on the poll taken. Here's a later poll by the same polling group.

University of Pennsylvania National Annenberg Election Survey. May 2-16, 2004. Nationwide. Interviewing conducted by Schulman, Ronca, Bucuvalas, Inc.



"Would you favor or oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution saying that no state can allow two men to marry each other or two women to marry each other?" N=3,775 adults, MoE ± 3 (total sample)


ALL 42 50
18-29 years old 36 56

So yes, 18-29 year olds were 36-56 against the amendment but that's only 6pts. more against than all Americans. I looked at more polls and indeed you are correct, younger Americans are much more likely to support gay marriage and oppose a constitutional amendment that older Americans. Crawjo, maybe you will be right in the long run but the gay rights issue isn't going to hurt the Republican party in 2004.