Opinion of LGBT Republicans

[Kingpoleon]

There are obviously FFs and HPs like in any community, but I'm goonna vote FF because I know two who are FFs (Sunrise and DavidB., like Cath mentioned), and because on principle, I start with a favourable view of LGBTQ people until they prove me otherwise

They're referring to Milo Yiannopoulos.

I used to be a Republican, and I am G, so I know where most of LGBT Republicans are coming from. I was in Log Cabin Republicans, and been to three of their national conventions.

I wish LGBT Republicans would stop hoping for judicial activism, i.e., decisions like Lawrence v. Texas, U.S. v. Windsor,, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

I suppose you'd also wish minorities in the 1950s and 1960s wouldn't support "judicial activism" for interracial marriage? Not normally completely comparable, but for a legal standpoint, it can apply.

[MarkD]

They're referring to Milo Yiannopoulos.

I used to be a Republican, and I am G, so I know where most of LGBT Republicans are coming from. I was in Log Cabin Republicans, and been to three of their national conventions.

I wish LGBT Republicans would stop hoping for judicial activism, i.e., decisions like Lawrence v. Texas, U.S. v. Windsor,, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

I suppose you'd also wish minorities in the 1950s and 1960s wouldn't support "judicial activism" for interracial marriage? Not normally completely comparable, but for a legal standpoint, it can apply.

That depends on what kind of minority you're talking about.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prohibit state government racial discrimination; the principle was to be about racial equality. Therefore I approve of Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia. I have read the [/I]Loving[/I] opinion by Chief Justice Warren and I approve of Section 1 of the opinion -- which emphasized the racial meaning of the Equal Protection Clause -- but I disapprove of the unnecessary Section 2 of the opinion, which claimed that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. I disapprove of extending the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause beyond racial equality. Aliens are a kind of "minority" too, and I disapprove of treating the Equal Protection Clause as if aliens have all the same rights as citizens. I disapprove of the line of decisions that struck down laws which discriminated against illegitimate children. I disapprove of the gay-rights decisions that I mentioned above.
The Equal Protection Clause has been the basis of dozens upon dozens of wrong decisions, because the only kind of discrimination that the people who adopted the 14th Amendment intended to ban was racial discrimination.

BTW, in my signature, I am suggesting a rewrite of the 14th Amendment in order to make the Equal Protection Clause (and other clauses in the 14th) have a clearer, narrower, more specific meaning. The proposal I have drafted includes bans on discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, and disability status.

[Kingpoleon]

They're referring to Milo Yiannopoulos.

I used to be a Republican, and I am G, so I know where most of LGBT Republicans are coming from. I was in Log Cabin Republicans, and been to three of their national conventions.

I wish LGBT Republicans would stop hoping for judicial activism, i.e., decisions like Lawrence v. Texas, U.S. v. Windsor,, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

I suppose you'd also wish minorities in the 1950s and 1960s wouldn't support "judicial activism" for interracial marriage? Not normally completely comparable, but for a legal standpoint, it can apply.

That depends on what kind of minority you're talking about.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prohibit state government racial discrimination; the principle was to be about racial equality. Therefore I approve of Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia. I have read the [/I]Loving[/I] opinion by Chief Justice Warren and I approve of Section 1 of the opinion -- which emphasized the racial meaning of the Equal Protection Clause -- but I disapprove of the unnecessary Section 2 of the opinion, which claimed that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. I disapprove of extending the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause beyond racial equality. Aliens are a kind of "minority" too, and I disapprove of treating the Equal Protection Clause as if aliens have all the same rights as citizens. I disapprove of the line of decisions that struck down laws which discriminated against illegitimate children. I disapprove of the gay-rights decisions that I mentioned above.
The Equal Protection Clause has been the basis of dozens upon dozens of wrong decisions, because the only kind of discrimination that the people who adopted the 14th Amendment intended to ban was racial discrimination.

BTW, in my signature, I am suggesting a rewrite of the 14th Amendment in order to make the Equal Protection Clause (and other clauses in the 14th) have a clearer, narrower, more specific meaning. The proposal I have drafted includes bans on discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, and disability status.

So, with your new amendment rewrite, would it be unlawful to discriminate based on religion or college choice(say, a black college)? You can't cover everything in a law, so the interpretation and extension thereof is, at times, necessary.

Furthermore, if marriage is not a fundamental right for all(under the Due Process Clause, by any other statute, law, etc., or by simple interpretation) as Section 2 of the rendered decision states, then it is not a fundamental right for racial minorities, rendering Section 1 of the rendered decision null and void. And if it is a fundamental right for all, then the precedent thereof allows for a clear basis for Obergefell v. Hodges.

[MarkD]

They're referring to Milo Yiannopoulos.

I used to be a Republican, and I am G, so I know where most of LGBT Republicans are coming from. I was in Log Cabin Republicans, and been to three of their national conventions.

I wish LGBT Republicans would stop hoping for judicial activism, i.e., decisions like Lawrence v. Texas, U.S. v. Windsor,, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

I suppose you'd also wish minorities in the 1950s and 1960s wouldn't support "judicial activism" for interracial marriage? Not normally completely comparable, but for a legal standpoint, it can apply.

That depends on what kind of minority you're talking about.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prohibit state government racial discrimination; the principle was to be about racial equality. Therefore I approve of Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia. I have read the [/I]Loving[/I] opinion by Chief Justice Warren and I approve of Section 1 of the opinion -- which emphasized the racial meaning of the Equal Protection Clause -- but I disapprove of the unnecessary Section 2 of the opinion, which claimed that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. I disapprove of extending the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause beyond racial equality. Aliens are a kind of "minority" too, and I disapprove of treating the Equal Protection Clause as if aliens have all the same rights as citizens. I disapprove of the line of decisions that struck down laws which discriminated against illegitimate children. I disapprove of the gay-rights decisions that I mentioned above.
The Equal Protection Clause has been the basis of dozens upon dozens of wrong decisions, because the only kind of discrimination that the people who adopted the 14th Amendment intended to ban was racial discrimination.

BTW, in my signature, I am suggesting a rewrite of the 14th Amendment in order to make the Equal Protection Clause (and other clauses in the 14th) have a clearer, narrower, more specific meaning. The proposal I have drafted includes bans on discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, and disability status.

So, with your new amendment rewrite, would it be unlawful to discriminate based on religion or college choice(say, a black college)? You can't cover everything in a law, so the interpretation and extension thereof is, at times, necessary.

Furthermore, if marriage is not a fundamental right for all(under the Due Process Clause, by any other statute, law, etc., or by simple interpretation) as Section 2 of the rendered decision states, then it is not a fundamental right for racial minorities, rendering Section 1 of the rendered decision null and void. And if it is a fundamental right for all, then the precedent thereof allows for a clear basis for Obergefell v. Hodges.

Yes, religious discrimination by government would still be unconstitutional, because I am keeping the premise that enumerated rights from amendments 1-8 still have to be enforced against the states. No, discrimination based on choice of college education would not be unconstitutional.

You are saying that Section 2 of Lovingwas necessary, because without Section 2 (Due Process), Section 1 was "null and void." I disagree. Is driving a car with a driver's license a "fundamental right?" The answer should be no. But if a state has a law that only white people can get driver's licenses and no racial minorities are allowed to get them, then the Equal Protection Clause is being violated. There does not have to be a "fundamental right" to be involved in order to find that the Equal Protection Clause has been violated.

[Maxwell]

Largely HPs, and seem to fit into a couple of categories, at least based on the few that have made it to public office. I will say a few are much better than the general Republican mean - think Richard Tisei and Jim Kolbe.

But of course some gay republicans are a lot worse than the mean, like serial molester Carl DeMaio, and Milo Yiannopolous, whose whole purpose is to affirm conservative stereotypes about homosexuals.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Milo and Peter Thiel are massive FFs. And especially Aaron Schock. Republicans are so good at identity politics.

[JonHawk]

The OP and the poster above are perfect examples of people who kindly need to piss off. Preferably to hell.

^^^

Also FF for conservative LGBTs, but mild HP for LGBT "centrists".

[Kingpoleon]

They're referring to Milo Yiannopoulos.

I used to be a Republican, and I am G, so I know where most of LGBT Republicans are coming from. I was in Log Cabin Republicans, and been to three of their national conventions.

I wish LGBT Republicans would stop hoping for judicial activism, i.e., decisions like Lawrence v. Texas, U.S. v. Windsor,, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

I suppose you'd also wish minorities in the 1950s and 1960s wouldn't support "judicial activism" for interracial marriage? Not normally completely comparable, but for a legal standpoint, it can apply.

That depends on what kind of minority you're talking about.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prohibit state government racial discrimination; the principle was to be about racial equality. Therefore I approve of Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia. I have read the [/I]Loving[/I] opinion by Chief Justice Warren and I approve of Section 1 of the opinion -- which emphasized the racial meaning of the Equal Protection Clause -- but I disapprove of the unnecessary Section 2 of the opinion, which claimed that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. I disapprove of extending the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause beyond racial equality. Aliens are a kind of "minority" too, and I disapprove of treating the Equal Protection Clause as if aliens have all the same rights as citizens. I disapprove of the line of decisions that struck down laws which discriminated against illegitimate children. I disapprove of the gay-rights decisions that I mentioned above.
The Equal Protection Clause has been the basis of dozens upon dozens of wrong decisions, because the only kind of discrimination that the people who adopted the 14th Amendment intended to ban was racial discrimination.

BTW, in my signature, I am suggesting a rewrite of the 14th Amendment in order to make the Equal Protection Clause (and other clauses in the 14th) have a clearer, narrower, more specific meaning. The proposal I have drafted includes bans on discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, and disability status.

So, with your new amendment rewrite, would it be unlawful to discriminate based on religion or college choice(say, a black college)? You can't cover everything in a law, so the interpretation and extension thereof is, at times, necessary.

Furthermore, if marriage is not a fundamental right for all(under the Due Process Clause, by any other statute, law, etc., or by simple interpretation) as Section 2 of the rendered decision states, then it is not a fundamental right for racial minorities, rendering Section 1 of the rendered decision null and void. And if it is a fundamental right for all, then the precedent thereof allows for a clear basis for Obergefell v. Hodges.

Yes, religious discrimination by government would still be unconstitutional, because I am keeping the premise that enumerated rights from amendments 1-8 still have to be enforced against the states. No, discrimination based on choice of college education would not be unconstitutional.

You are saying that Section 2 of Lovingwas necessary, because without Section 2 (Due Process), Section 1 was "null and void." I disagree. Is driving a car with a driver's license a "fundamental right?" The answer should be no. But if a state has a law that only white people can get driver's licenses and no racial minorities are allowed to get them, then the Equal Protection Clause is being violated. There does not have to be a "fundamental right" to be involved in order to find that the Equal Protection Clause has been violated.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The right of marriage is part of life, a legal liberty, and directly a pursuit of happiness. And, whereas all men are created equal, to deny anyone that regularly considered a part of life, in this case marriage, or in your example a driver's license, to discriminate amongst equals is contrary to that beginning phrase in the beginning of our country.

[MarkD]

They're referring to Milo Yiannopoulos.

I used to be a Republican, and I am G, so I know where most of LGBT Republicans are coming from. I was in Log Cabin Republicans, and been to three of their national conventions.

I wish LGBT Republicans would stop hoping for judicial activism, i.e., decisions like Lawrence v. Texas, U.S. v. Windsor,, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

I suppose you'd also wish minorities in the 1950s and 1960s wouldn't support "judicial activism" for interracial marriage? Not normally completely comparable, but for a legal standpoint, it can apply.

That depends on what kind of minority you're talking about.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prohibit state government racial discrimination; the principle was to be about racial equality. Therefore I approve of Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia. I have read the [/I]Loving[/I] opinion by Chief Justice Warren and I approve of Section 1 of the opinion -- which emphasized the racial meaning of the Equal Protection Clause -- but I disapprove of the unnecessary Section 2 of the opinion, which claimed that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. I disapprove of extending the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause beyond racial equality. Aliens are a kind of "minority" too, and I disapprove of treating the Equal Protection Clause as if aliens have all the same rights as citizens. I disapprove of the line of decisions that struck down laws which discriminated against illegitimate children. I disapprove of the gay-rights decisions that I mentioned above.
The Equal Protection Clause has been the basis of dozens upon dozens of wrong decisions, because the only kind of discrimination that the people who adopted the 14th Amendment intended to ban was racial discrimination.

BTW, in my signature, I am suggesting a rewrite of the 14th Amendment in order to make the Equal Protection Clause (and other clauses in the 14th) have a clearer, narrower, more specific meaning. The proposal I have drafted includes bans on discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, and disability status.

So, with your new amendment rewrite, would it be unlawful to discriminate based on religion or college choice(say, a black college)? You can't cover everything in a law, so the interpretation and extension thereof is, at times, necessary.

Furthermore, if marriage is not a fundamental right for all(under the Due Process Clause, by any other statute, law, etc., or by simple interpretation) as Section 2 of the rendered decision states, then it is not a fundamental right for racial minorities, rendering Section 1 of the rendered decision null and void. And if it is a fundamental right for all, then the precedent thereof allows for a clear basis for Obergefell v. Hodges.

Yes, religious discrimination by government would still be unconstitutional, because I am keeping the premise that enumerated rights from amendments 1-8 still have to be enforced against the states. No, discrimination based on choice of college education would not be unconstitutional.

You are saying that Section 2 of Lovingwas necessary, because without Section 2 (Due Process), Section 1 was "null and void." I disagree. Is driving a car with a driver's license a "fundamental right?" The answer should be no. But if a state has a law that only white people can get driver's licenses and no racial minorities are allowed to get them, then the Equal Protection Clause is being violated. There does not have to be a "fundamental right" to be involved in order to find that the Equal Protection Clause has been violated.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The right of marriage is part of life, a legal liberty, and directly a pursuit of happiness. And, whereas all men are created equal, to deny anyone that regularly considered a part of life, in this case marriage, or in your example a driver's license, to discriminate amongst equals is contrary to that beginning phrase in the beginning of our country.

The Declaration of Indepedence is not law, the Constitution is. Constitution's dictate the structure of government and they delegate powers. The power to declare what is or is not a fundamental right is not a power that the U.S. Constitution delegates to the judicial branch. To decide that getting married is or is not a "fundamental right" is a legislative power, not a judicial power, although the judiciary has done a swell job (that's sarcasm, folks) of usurping that power. Oh, and do not forget the last words of what you were quoting from the DoI:
"... that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Nobody in the legislative branch of the federal government consented to giving to the judicial branch the power to declare this, that, and another thing to be "fundamental rights."

[Anna Komnene]

I guess it depends on whether they support policies that help their fellow lgbt or not.

[MarkD]

I guess it depends on whether they support policies that help their fellow lgbt or not.

Log Cabin Republicans do.
There is no organization that I've heard of made up of LGBT Republicans who do not support equal rights for LGBT. Individuals like Milo Yiannopolous do not support equal rights for the community, but if there's a lot like him, they keep mostly quiet.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Something like the Log Cabin Republicans? FF
Those that are moderates, like the guy who ran against Scott Peters in 2014? Also FF

The choice characters who go around saying they're gay but don't care if they can't get a gay marriage, or if they're fired solely because they are gay (which is legal in 29 states), or if some restaurant won't serve them, etc. are very strange and it's hard to understand how they can be against the policies that are favorable to them and their sexual orientation. But hey, if they want to vote that way, more power to them. Not really an FF or HP thing.

[RINO Tom]

Uncle Toms

GOD, you're a terrible poster.

Anyway, the only way civil rights was accomplished is because you had several politicians of different parties and ideologies that cooperated to get it done.  The LGBT community, while certainly under absolutely zero pressure to support any Republicans (and I could see why many would refuse to, to be sure), would certainly benefit from two parties that had significant numbers of politicians publicly sympathetic to their cause.  FFs.

[Santander]

Uncle RINO Toms

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Not a big fan of Senator Rubio.

[All Along The Watchtower]

HPs (sorry Torie)

[RINO Tom]

Uncle RINO Toms

No way you'll actually respond to this, but have you become such a boring, worthless troll that you have resorted to straight up just calling me gay like a third grade bully?

[America Needs R'hllor]

Uncle RINO Toms

No way you'll actually respond to this, but have you become such a boring, worthless troll that you have resorted to straight up just calling me gay like a third grade bully?

Hm... Maybe it's just because I see gay Republicans as perfectly normal people, but I saw it as a snark about LGBT Republicans often being socially liberal and fiscally conservative like yourself.

[Santander]

Uncle RINO Toms

No way you'll actually respond to this, but have you become such a boring, worthless troll that you have resorted to straight up just calling me gay like a third grade bully?

I wasn't calling you gay.

[Green Line]

There is nothing wrong with being a Gay Republican or a RINO Tom, even though many, many others would disagree with me for good reason.  Their voices should not be silenced.

[RINO Tom]

There is nothing wrong with being a Gay Republican or a RINO Tom, even though many, many others would disagree with me for good reason.  Their voices should not be silenced.

LOL

[Torie]

HPs (sorry Torie)

That is OK. I don't like criticizing folks for their opinions based on who they are, but that is just me. For the record, LGBT issues had next to nothing to do with my change of party. It was more about that the Pubs in general had more often than not ceased to be realistic in coming up with appropriate policies to address the problems in the public square. And then the whole syndrome assumed corporeal form with the rise of Trump, which to me totally validated my decision.

[Dr. MB]

FF's. The GOP will be more accepting to LGBT issues if they have actual gay people in their party.

[All Along The Watchtower]

HPs (sorry Torie)

That is OK. I don't like criticizing folks for their opinions based on who they are, but that is just me. For the record, LGBT issues had next to nothing to do with my change of party. It was more about that the Pubs in general had more often than not ceased to be realistic in coming up with appropriate policies to address the problems in the public square. And then the whole syndrome assumed corporeal form with the rise of Trump, which to me totally validated my decision.

Fair enough.

[Cactus Jack]

Self-loathing, self-destructive hypocrites.