who is the guest of the RNC

September 6, 2004 9:59 AM

In a thread from a few weeks ago, someone mentioned an upcoming guest of the RNC would be a man who had a well-documented anti-homosexual agenda. I know, I know. An easy snark: "That's ALL of them! LOLOL" . Any ideas?
posted by dhoyt to MetaFilter-Related at 9:59 AM (29 comments total)

was it Falwell doing the opening prayer? (It turned out to be someone even worse, and it is all of them)
posted by amberglow at 10:31 AM on September 6, 2004

Not Falwell.

And saying "it IS all of them" indicates you have some insight into the personal objective of every single guest of the RNC. Don't facile, sweeping generalizations just make us all look silly? "All gays are bitchy!", "All Blacks are religious nuts!" etc.
posted by dhoyt at 10:55 AM on September 6, 2004

I'm confused. If you're saying "Not Falwell," doesn't that imply you know who it is? In which case, why are you asking? And if you don't, how do you know it isn't Falwell?
posted by languagehat at 11:19 AM on September 6, 2004

Have you people never heard of the Log Cabin Republicans?
posted by konolia at 11:24 AM on September 6, 2004

If you're saying "Not Falwell," doesn't that imply you know who it is?

Because Falwell is a household name, this other person is not, which is why I can't remember it.
posted by dhoyt at 11:25 AM on September 6, 2004

Rick Santorum?
posted by donth at 11:31 AM on September 6, 2004

Not Santorum either. As I remember, it wasn't someone who had been discussed much at MeFi or in the news, but he sounded like something of a radical.....
posted by dhoyt at 11:34 AM on September 6, 2004

And saying "it IS all of them" indicates you have some insight into the personal objective of every single guest of the RNC.

From the Republican Party platform:

"We affirm traditional military culture, and we affirm that homosexuality is incompatible with military service."

and

"President Bush will also vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by 85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states."

Not that the Dems are much better.
posted by callmejay at 11:36 AM on September 6, 2004

homosexuality is incompatible with military service."

This person I'm thinking of had suggested homosexuality was an abomination from the darkest pits of hell, not merely "incompatible with military service".
posted by dhoyt at 11:39 AM on September 6, 2004

Ah. Your post just said "anti-homosexual agenda," which is clearly an apt description of the GOP platform.
posted by callmejay at 11:53 AM on September 6, 2004

Keyes? He said something about selfish hedonism.
posted by loquax at 11:57 AM on September 6, 2004

konolia:
There are gay Republicans, just as over here we do have some gay Conservatives. The difference is that we now have conservatives saying things like:

Shadow Minister for Young People Charles Hendry MP, who hosted the event, commented, 'This event will enable us to gain a fuller understanding of the concerns and views of voluntary groups, and the young people they support. We will be using the feedback to ensure that our policies reach out fully to the gay community - for too often, the prejudices and abuse that many homosexuals face are simply ignored by politicians. It’s time this changed, and I am happy to help make that change happen.' Tim Yeo MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Public Services, Health & Education, opened the summit. Contributions were also heard from Conservative London mayoral candidate Steve Norris, Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs Alan Duncan MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Health Andrew Lansley MP, Commander Brian Paddick of the Metropolitan Police...

Also - this is Conservative policy: The Government has published the Civil Partnership Bill, which is supported by the Conservative Party. Gay Conservatives are campaigning to maximise support from Conservative MPs and Peers in what will be free votes.

Michael Howard* supports the Civil Partnership Bill, and is giving a lead to Conservative MPs and Peers on this important issue.

We are campaigning to maximise support from Conservatives in Parliament for the Bill. Visit the campaign website to add your voice to the campaign, sign the online petition, and read all about why Conservatives should support the Civil Partnership Bill.
*Conservative Party leader.

Does that compare well with the lot of gay republicans, or is the sun always shining on fags where you live? I just cannot hear that becoming policy in the Dems anytime soon - let alone the party of bigotry, division and skygods.

LCR's: Come on over this side of the pond, - it's official: Europeans are more progressive than yanks are.
[sorry, should I have ignored that like you all did?]
posted by dash_slot- at 12:12 PM on September 6, 2004

dhoyt, she isn't a man, but you may be thinking of the lovely Sheri Dew. She gave the opening invocation instead of Falwell.
posted by varmint at 1:18 PM on September 6, 2004

The Republican platform, approved by every delegate i believe, called for denying gay and lesbian American couples all rights and benefits married couples get, whether from civil unions, marriage or anything: We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges norbureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent tomarriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and fatheranchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and theaccompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage. --the 2004 GOP platform, page 83.
posted by amberglow at 1:27 PM on September 6, 2004

It's strange, but from my strictly UK perspective and from watching Will and Grace, I get the feeling that all gay American men are republicans, and all gay American women are democrats. There is obviously the whole "gay is teh evil" vibe spouted by the religious right, and amberglow (the only gay on metafilter*) obviously comes from from a more left wing perspective, but for me, American mainstream gay culture seems very, very republican in its ideals.

example. Recent episode of Will and Grace. Will is set up on a date with a man who has recently come out of the closet. Will doesn't want anything to do with him because of his hippyish beard, sandals, home knitted sweater. Will's friend convinces Will that he should be given a chance to "understand" the Gay Consumer lifestyle. Will and friend take some consumer clothing to the new gay with instructions to dress in brand name clothes and only work out during the night because they don't want to be seen with someone different.

Dash-slot is right. Even though the general british public is racist as fuck, homosexuality is almost totally accepted. In 8 years time, when Portillo wins the election, we'll have our first gay(ish) prime-minister.

*"only gay on metafilter" is a reference to a series called little britain. (you can get it on BBC America). It's a joke.
posted by seanyboy at 4:15 PM on September 6, 2004

I've seen that show! he's a horror! godforbid! ewwww

The reason you may see gay men in the US as Republicans (which they're certainly not) is because they're not allowed to be seen as actually sleeping with, or kissing anyone on network tv, so all they can do is shop, and work out, and be consumers while wisecracking. Will & Grace pushes a very very narrow nonthreatening or upsetting view--produced specifically for straight women's eyes (much like Queer Eye). We're way way behind you guys.
posted by amberglow at 4:22 PM on September 6, 2004

wasn't My Beautiful Laundrette originally a tv movie? and that was the 80s, no?
posted by amberglow at 4:29 PM on September 6, 2004

I've been unfair, and probably a little smug. in the UK, pre-watershed (before 9.00pm), it's unusual to see normal gay life on t.v. The soaps have tried, but every gay kiss is met with tabloid fervour/titilation and our popular culture is yet to see past the stereotypes propagated by icons such as Larry Grayson (a personal hero, sadly deceased) and Graham Norton. "My Beautiful Laundrette" was produced & shown by Channel Four before it stop trying and decided to show nothing but prime-time American Comedy shows. If anything, there's been a step backwards in favour of ratings and advertising revenue. (You can blame Murdoch for that)

Your view of the UK is interesting, because it mirrors my own view of the Dutch. I wonder if there's a little bit of "grass is greener on the other side" evangelicising going on here. I would posit that some of the UK is trying, but it definitley isn't there yet. As countries, we're probably in about the same place.
posted by seanyboy at 5:08 PM on September 6, 2004

varmint: poor old Sheri Dew. Just out of the blocks, and she's already invoking the spirit of Godwin. If anything says "I believe this, but I can't prove it", or "I'm just trying to wind you up by talking nonsense", then this is it.
posted by seanyboy at 5:21 PM on September 6, 2004

What channel is Queer as Folk on? (and we're all behind the Dutch, some more than others) ; >
posted by amberglow at 6:10 PM on September 6, 2004

"I'm confused. If you're saying "Not Falwell," doesn't that imply you know who it is? In which case, why are you asking? And if you don't, how do you know it isn't Falwell?"

Languagehat, do you mean to say that you've never experienced the feeling of having something on the tip of your tongue but not been able to recall the details? You know people's guesses are wrong, but you still can't reach the answer. There are many circumstances under which one might not know what something is but know a good deal about what it isn't.

You add an awful lot to this community, but ever since you were pissy with me for almost no reason, I've noticed you get pissy with a lot of other people for even less, well crossing the line of pedantry and separating yourself from other MeFi snarkiness by being utterly humourless in the process. I respect you enormously, but for once, for the sake of my own sanity, I'm going to tell you to shut the hell up. In future I won't say a word.
posted by nthdegx at 5:43 AM on September 7, 2004

So was it Sheri Dew or not? She sounds like the most likely candidate, despite not being a man. Where the hell did dhoyt go?

By the way, anyone who hasn't been following Alan Keyes' clownish campaign, and specifically his foot-in-mouth over Mary Cheney, you've missed out on some great laughs. I prepared but then rejected an FPP because it just seemed to trivial and schadenfreudy, but here (where those are practically the coin of the realm) I'll give you just one taste:

John McCain: "I think it's clear we lose Illinois."
posted by soyjoy at 8:10 AM on September 7, 2004

Sorry, I've been taking care of a family member. Just read through, and sorry, it's not Sheri Dew. It was definitely a man, I believe from the religious community, who would seem benign to folks not paying attention, but he clearly had a serious fundamentalist background and I'm sure he was briefly discussed on MeFi. It's on the tip of my tongue, but I can't place the name...
posted by dhoyt at 8:51 AM on September 7, 2004

Jesus Christ, nthdegx, have you joined the ranks of the paranoid "who's out to get me?" crowd? Are you going to put up a watch list on your user page, like jonson? I wasn't being "pissy" with dhoyt, it was an honest question. I hadn't thought of the tip-of-the-tongue thing; my analysis of his original question was that somebody had mentioned an unnamed guest and dhoyt wanted to know who it was, so I was confused by his followup. Once he explained, I understood, and all was well... until you showed up with your unnecessary contribution.

Or, to put it in terms you can understand: no, you shut the hell up, you humorless jerk. Yup, now I'm being pissy. Don't Tread On Me, as the founding fathers said.
posted by languagehat at 9:22 AM on September 7, 2004

I didn't think you were being pissy, fwiw...
posted by dhoyt at 9:28 AM on September 7, 2004

Was it Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell? His disgusting prayer at the inauguration confirmed that George Bush answers only to Jesus Christ, not the American people.
posted by PrinceValium at 9:41 AM on September 7, 2004

Ralph Reed? former head of Christian Coalition, and now working for the Bush campaign? looks like Damien in the Omen movies?
posted by amberglow at 9:50 AM on September 7, 2004

"Or, to put it in terms you can understand..."

And here was I thinking you were merely condescending, smug and superior. Had you given dhoyt's comment any thought at all you'd have stumbled upon the "tip-of-the-tongue thing" almost immediately. I know this because I am able to credit you with the intelligence you are unable to credit me (and others - hence my first comment). Seriously, mate - despite the flame-bait nature of your response, I'll emphasise that I do respect your contributions to the community to a considerable degree, but often I feel you do cross the line of decency. To respond to that with insults I feel somewhat vindicates me; and the fact that I think that you think you're better than the rest of us and hence refuse to stop and consider my position for even a moment is somewhat telling. In any case: all the best. I'll continue to enjoy your contributions.

And by the way, what you've said to me in the past is not the issue. It was a very long time ago, and the reason I mention it is that it was from that point that I noticed you doing the same to others with quite some frequency. It's only that I reckon that this must be know the fifteenth comment of this sort; and that it is so out of sorts with the remainder of your comments, that I mention it at all.

Oh yeah - and get your own adjectives!
posted by nthdegx at 5:31 PM on September 7, 2004

Sorry, I think I'll take dhoyt's reaction over yours, since he had every reason to be sensitive about my question and you have none except your bizarre paranoia. You claim "what you've said to me in the past is not the issue," but you keep bringing it up. I have no memory of it, and I guarantee you in a week I'll have no memory of this, and all I'll think of when I see your username is "gosh, that's tough to say." But you go right on seething if it makes you feel happy and vindicated.
posted by languagehat at 6:34 PM on September 7, 2004