Friday Gay Blogging

Denial seems to be the stance of the day among RSMs (for those of you who don't know, which should be just about everyone, since I just made it up, that stands for "Republicans who have Sex with Men"). Via Joe.My.God, this comment on Patrick Sammon's defense of John McCain:

Again Sammon stressed that McCain opposes a federal ban on gay marriage, but conveniently forgot to mention that McCain wants gay marriage overturned in California and supported a ban in his home state of Arizona. According to Sammon, the "rank and file of the Republican party is much more supportive of gay rights that one might suspect." Oh, Patrick.

And from Pam's House Blend, Pam Spaulding has this story, which is news indeed: the McCain campaign actually spoke to the Log Cabin Republicans. Funny thing though:

It's important to note, however, that Schmidt didn't discuss McCain's opposition to any pro-LGBT legislation, and his support for state marriage amendments, and carefully avoided the LCR's mission to advance equality. He indicated only that "over time" more equality for gays "will be reached."

And Palin's even worse.

Update

This note from Andrew Sullivan has me scratching my head. Quoting James Kirchick:

Other gay sources within the GOP tell me they are very pleased not only with the McCain pick, but also, surprisingly, with the Palin one (I've been looking into her record on gay issues this past week and will have more to report later). All in all, they view McCain's ascension (and the rejection of Mitt Romney, whom the Log Cabin Republicans attempted to torpedo in the primary) as a move in the right direction for the GOP,

Now, I've had my differences with Kirchick, but this one -- well, thinking about it, it's more of the same. I suppose, in the big picture, not using us for target practice at the convention is a sign of something, but I'm not sure what it is, particularly with the selection of Palin as a sop to the Dobson Gang. Sullivan's comment:

McCain's speech was the first Republican address in a long while that didn't mention same-sex marriage. What he didn't say was in some ways as significant as what he did. And the gulf between the "church revival feel" of the convention and McCain's reticence on gay issues reveals just how out of step with reality the party machinery has become.

"Reticence on gay issues"? He hasn't been reticent at all: he opposes anything and everything that might help us. (Sorry, but opposition to an FMA is nothing -- that's so totally a dead horse than only Dobson still has any affection for it. Opposing it costs McCain nothing, because it's never going to happen anyway.) As for making it a keynote of the campaign, that would, at this point, be a strong negative.

I think it's a case of looking for silver linings while dodging lightning.

Spaulding has one comment that stands out, and is the best counter I've seen to the "it doesn't define me" mantra:

The "it doesn't define me" nonsense. I'm not sure WTF this means -- the wallet is more important than civil rights? The right to privacy and illegal search and seizure (oops, the Bush admin's assailed that for you), the War on Terror? For those of us committed to elected people who will advance rights -- and understand the importance of putting someone in the White House who will appoint pro-equality justices to the Supreme Court, it's not being LGBT that defines us, but that many of our civil rights and liberties are under attack as a result of the GOP being in power for so long.

This touches on the fundamental disagreement I have with gay "conservatives" (the quotes merely denote the fact that they support the Republican party, no matter what that party espouses -- I consider myself more conservative in the classic sense than any of them that I've heard comments from). No, "gay" does not define me. No single aspect of my personality "defines" me. That's a stupid, simplistic dodge. Identity is something that grows and changes as we grow and change, and so the relative importance of various aspects of who I am take prominence depending on where I am in my life. If someone is worried about being defined as gay, I have to wonder how strong an identity he has to begin with. I'm simply "me" -- gay is part of it, as are "artist," "writer," "eternally curious," "good-natured" (usually), "temperamental," "competent," and any number of other characteristics.

Spaulding is right -- she's probably not sure what that mantra means because it means nothing.

Just to give you a good sense of how deep in denial LCR is, read this statement:

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin can help Sen. McCain win this election by appealing to independent and young voters. She's a mainstream Republican who will unite the Party and serve John McCain well as Vice President. Gov. Palin is an inclusive Republican who will help Sen. McCain appeal to gay and lesbian voters.

Sadly, from the look of things, Palin is indeed a "mainstream" Republican. That does not put her in the mainstream of America. That's what the party has become. But "inclusive"? Excuse me? Check out what Jeremy Hooper has to say on Palin's record of inclusiveness.

I'm cutting today's FGB a little short -- even the gay blogs and press can't seem to talk about anything but McCain/Palin, and I am so over that. And I have to turn out some writing projects. Maybe later, if I run across something interesting.

Dessert today courtesy of Queerty -- and man! is it sweet!