Conservative Homosexuals Endorse Romney

Why A Romney White House May Not Be Unfriendly To Gays

"I can say with confidence that the Romney administration would work on desirable outcomes for workplace non-discrimination," Log Cabins' R. Clarke Cooper told the Washington Blade, a gay website. "I'm going to leave it broad like that because I think there's room for administrative action as well as legislative. I also think it's probably fair to say that legislation in a form of an ENDA or an ENDA-like legislation is certainly realistic." ...

It was also reported that Romney said he would not overturn or support several laws such as the "Don't Ask, Don' Tell" repeal or hospital visitation rights for couples, which the Obama administration has put into place as a condition of hospitals receiving Medicare funds. And according to Cooper, Romney indicated he would not advocate a federal marriage amendment.

"There's not going to be a retreat by President Romney on repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell," Cooper said. "There's not going to be a retreat on hospital visitation. We were very, very clear not only to Gov. Romney, but to the campaign staff that were working to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. That was part of our legislative portfolio. They clearly understood that."

Kinda funny ... in the article it says that, much like Obama's position on gay marriage, Romney's position has 'evolved'. Obama was against gay marriage but now claims to be for it. Romney was for gay marriage and now claims to be against it.

I'm not buying that Obama is for marriage equality and Romney is against equality. Obama has done nothing to help it along in the four years he's been in the white house and he only came out supposedly for gay marriage two days before a LGBT fundraiser. And Romney used to be rather vocal about being for gay marriage, but he only 'changed' when he started pandering to the right wing 'base'.

Bush43 tried to change the US Constitution to make marriage in the USA between one man and one woman. Dick Cheney stopped him. Considering how Romney is only 'pro traditional marriage' to pander to the right wing base, and Obama is only 'pro marriage equality' for two days before a LGBT fundraiser, I'm thinking that whoever gets in the White House for the next four years will not make any changes in this area.

(oh .. side note ... the Romneys used to donate to Planned Parenthood but now are supposedly 'pro life' ... kinda tells you just how serious they are when they say they stand for something )

Does a bear sh .t in the woods?
But with 50% of all male beig either gay, Bi or extremely Bi-curious and transgender/bender:
you want them to vote for you. Every little bit helps.
Now the leftist gays will vote Obama: again, does a duck swim?

I think Romney is much more moderate than he puts on. He tries to appease social conservatives within the Reps, but the reality will be that his Presidency will have no bad consequences on homosexuals.

Dems of course, are good at marketing the idea that only they are the party of homosexuals, women, blacks, hispanics and the poor, but the majority of Reps are not anti-homosexual in this day and age. The difference is merely that Reps have more of a focus on the economy and foreign affairs whereas Dems emphasize civil rights.

Good news !
But I can't help wondering what is the Conservative Fetichists stance on that.

How about liberal transexual bankers. How should they vote?

Nearly a new low for ATS

Nearly

reply to post by FlyersFan


Conservative homosexual sounds like an oxymoron.

Originally posted by mikellmikell
How about liberal transexual bankers. How should they vote?

Nearly a new low for ATS

Nearly

Under Politically Correct dogma, gays, blacks and minorities in general are all assumed to be victims and hence automatically protected groups.

Transsexual bankers would however not fall within the 'protected' minority for the simple reason that most of them would be caucasian males and hence assumed to be oppressors of all other groups in society.

In fact, the only group that is never protected by political correctness is caucasian males for the simple fact that they are automatically assumed to be oppressors of all other groups, who are conversely automatically assumed to be victims.

So much so that to even discuss gays and their voting preference is to assume that they are somehow being oppressed and hence reaching a new low of unacceptable behavior.

Gays are a protected group and no one should forget that.

Originally posted by Thaking1
Does a bear sh .t in the woods?
But with 50% of all male beig either gay, Bi or extremely Bi-curious and transgender/bender:
you want them to vote for you. Every little bit helps.
Now the leftist gays will vote Obama: again, does a duck swim?

edit on 29-10-2012 by Thaking1 because: (no reason given)

Where did you get those numbers, I find that hard to believe.

I don't know why we all pretend they aren't closet homosexuals anyway

Originally posted by mikeone718
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

Conservative homosexual sounds like an oxymoron.

Well you have to remember how many came out of the closet in the Republican congress. I think they are rare like unicorns.

BTW S&F OP it is definitly an interesting find.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Token gay people making statements in support of their team is nothing unusual. This is like the token black people in the BNP in the UK.

It doesn't matter how many gay people express support for the Republican party, they have proven themselves through their actions and religious insanity that the party - as a whole - is homophobic.

You cannot have a party openly clinging to their homophobic religious beliefs while claiming to be supportive of gay equality. They are opposing views and cannot simply be reconciled by some idiots making asinine statements about their political team.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I think Romney is much more moderate than he puts on. He tries to appease social conservatives within the Reps, but the reality will be that his Presidency will have no bad consequences on homosexuals.

The difficulty with this argument and all similair policy arguments with regards to Romney's dramatic shifts and flip-flopping...is the assumption that somehow he will grow a spine of steel once in the White House.

That come inaugriation day he will peel off some mask and the great mystery of who is the REAL Mitt Romney will be suddenly revealed.

Is not the much more likely truth that Mitt Romney will be whatever he is told to be once in the White House? A convenience to a conservative agenda. A simply maleable tool of right wing idealogy?

To the point...I am much less concerned with the mystery of what Mitt Romney actually believes than his willingness to abandon near utterly those beliefs depending on the direction of the wind and I don't see that changing once he is elected.

reply to post by FlyersFan


[some small, unknown number of] Conservative Homosexuals Endorse Romney

Fixed the headline for you. I have no doubt that there are a number of GOP Homosexuals that endorse Mitt Romney...Larry Kraig for example...It's just that your headline gave the impression a single voting entity and it would seem a stretch...

reply to post by FlyersFan


I thought the Republican Party was already pretty much a synonym for conservative homosexuals (considering their past records and scandals).

Amazing how many people support gay rights until that gay person is republican. Then it is open season on gay bashing. Check out this website.

www.logcabin.org...

and remember, no matter what your race/sex/religion/sexual preference you can chose which political party you want to be a part of or you can chose to abstain from politics all together. Being a certain way does not mean you are automatically repub or dem.