Dear G.T. and Impenitent and any others who read my msgs as being some tyrannical closeminded bigot hypocrite about gay rights or citizenship (or imposing new rules, when all I've posted this whole time is that I believe in passing policy reforms by CONSENSUS since there are so many different political beliefs to include):
I guess I should take it as a compliment that you see me as so impassioned, you worry I am going to run around and impose all this against the will of others, when that is the opposite of what I believe. Anything that has to do with govt reforms, I believe in forming agreement in advance, all by free will and fully informed/educated choice, where the people participate directly in writing the legislation so it represents all groups and doesn't have these biases and conflicts causing division and fear of others imposing their beliefs!
I already freaked out poor Impenitent who thought I was going to "unilaterally" start imposing things by executive orders through States and bypass the consent of the people affected. In truth, what I meant by changing rules on enforcing standards on citizenship is to have the PEOPLE affected by them to agree what standards to pass and sign onto. One issue that scared Impenitent was the idea of holding the rioters in Ferguson responsible for labor and financial restitution for damage caused to property, business and homeowners by the protests. Free speech isn't free if you cause financial damage. So whatever deal would have to be worked out to deter such expensive protests in the future would have to be AGREED upon by the people involved. I originally wanted to challenge Occupy protestors to raise 10 to 30 million to pay back for the costs of THOSE protests, and only found 1 Occupy activist who AGREED on this idea of taking responsibility. But when I went back to search online for her, I read she had passed away in January, very young, only 28. So maybe I could follow up on this idea in her behalf, as one of the solutions we agreed on. What I cannot stress enough is that all this reform I bring up is by VOLUNTARY participation, ie free choice. NONE of this level of reform can be imposed by govt, that's my WHOLE POINT. we are talking about political BELIEFS so those must be chosen and acted up by FREE WILL. That's my whole contention of what is going wrong with govt, this political BULLYING by coercion and exclusion, instead of Consent of the Governed.
Sorry this was not clear, my WHOLE argument is publlc policy and authority should reflect CONSENT of the people affected, thus my INSISTENCE on mediating conflicts so policies are written and passed by CONSENSUS (example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service that is well written and passed Unanimously by Consensus of Congress, see ethics-commission.net so YES it CAN be done. Laws CAN be written well enough to pass by consensus if we take the time to edit and work out where we AGREE on central standards)
For G.T. who is convinced I am hardly different from the "Jim Crow" bigots who want to keep enforcing privileges for themselves under law while excluding other people relegated to 'separate but equal' positions,
all I can say is that the outreach I do to try to bring together the gay activists segregated politically is not like anyone else I know. When my transgender friend, I just met at the UU fellowhip I rejoined this year, found out I was trying to support the Log Cabin Republicans in working with the liberal LGBT progressive activists,
I was strongly criticized with "WHY would you want to work with Republicans? THEY don't want you!" I said that the Republicans had succeeded in changing their state platform to REMOVE the references to homosexuality as sin and replaced the terms with "sexual sins" that covered all abuses, which I totally agreed with and APPLAUDED. They also succeeded in defending the RIGHT to choose reparative therapy, which I thought was much needed instead of banning it altogether as not even a choice. On both counts, highly controversial and both contested, I felt it was URGENT to support the Log Cabin Republicans and other gay activists within the Republican Party fighting to represent LGBT rights, and even winning elected positions of party Chairs that other members were refusing to recognize. More support was needed to make sure there is reconciliation so we can move forward with constructive reforms we can all agree on, if they are written and passed collaboratively and not pushed adversarially which divides people against each other.
My LGBT friend did NOT understand why it was important to make such alliances. I said we needed to come together and unify all the support across the board.
So G.T. I may not contribute much to the movement, but little things like this to build bridges
where there are HUGE gaps, can only make people and relations stronger in working on common goals,
DESPITE our political differences. We can't let that get in the way of solving our local and national problems.
So you may see me as some kind of bigot, but whatever my personal views are, I will support the HECK out of people trying to defend their beliefs from oppression. Even asking to invite and bring together the younger activists within the Texas GOP with the more seasoned activists in the progressive camps of the LGBT community who have never met much less worked together. Why not? These leaders NEED to work together to achieve common goals. That's just a given!
But I had to stop and EXPLAIN it to my LGBT friend who was just plain SHOCKED and APPALLED I would reach out to Republicans. Why not, when those activists are fighting tooth and nail to get reforms through, while being treated as nonmembers when they are winning elected positions within their own party, they deserve nothing but support to resolve whatever is causing that divide messing things up for them.
I thought they did an outstanding job pushing for reforms that are monumental for a party as conservative as Texas is culturally.
Anyway I wanted to post this for G.T. from the email I got on Log Cabin Republican updates.
G.T. what kind of "anti-gay bigot" tries to support the gay Republicans in defending their reforms to their own party platform and tries to bring them together with the progressive LGBT activists so they can consolidate and support common efforts. Can you find any other activists trying to help the LGBT outreach and reforms unite together on where they agree in language between the parties to stop further division:
============================
This email was sent to you by Log Cabin Republicans. To ensure delivery, please add [email protected] to your address book.
Log Cabin Republicans Statement on Equality Act Introduction
Washington, D.C. — Today, Democrats in the United States Senate and House of Representatives led by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Congressman David Cicilline (D-RI) introduced their version of LGBT civil rights legislation titled The Equality Act.
"It is widely known that Log Cabin Republicans has long supported, lobbied, and advocated for comprehensive LGBT non-discrimination legislation, but we share hesitations about the Equality Act expressed by a number of organizations including LGBT advocates on the left and other civil rights groups," Log Cabin Republicans National Executive Director Gregory T. Angelo stated. "Some of our staunchest Republican allies in Congress with unassailable records in favor of LGBT equality have indicated similar concerns with this legislation. The full text of the Equality Act was only provided to Log Cabin Republicans late last night, mere hours prior to the bill's formal introduction. We will review this bill with our allies in Congress and National Board of Directors prior to taking any official position. Log Cabin Republicans does not operate on the timetables of others; ultimatums are not the way to grow coalitions."
Log Cabin Republicans is the nation’s largest Republican organization representing LGBT conservatives and allies. The more than 30-year old organization has state and local chapters nationwide, a full-time office in Washington, D.C., a federal political action committee and state political action committees.
I guess I should take it as a compliment that you see me as so impassioned, you worry I am going to run around and impose all this against the will of others, when that is the opposite of what I believe. Anything that has to do with govt reforms, I believe in forming agreement in advance, all by free will and fully informed/educated choice, where the people participate directly in writing the legislation so it represents all groups and doesn't have these biases and conflicts causing division and fear of others imposing their beliefs!
I already freaked out poor Impenitent who thought I was going to "unilaterally" start imposing things by executive orders through States and bypass the consent of the people affected. In truth, what I meant by changing rules on enforcing standards on citizenship is to have the PEOPLE affected by them to agree what standards to pass and sign onto. One issue that scared Impenitent was the idea of holding the rioters in Ferguson responsible for labor and financial restitution for damage caused to property, business and homeowners by the protests. Free speech isn't free if you cause financial damage. So whatever deal would have to be worked out to deter such expensive protests in the future would have to be AGREED upon by the people involved. I originally wanted to challenge Occupy protestors to raise 10 to 30 million to pay back for the costs of THOSE protests, and only found 1 Occupy activist who AGREED on this idea of taking responsibility. But when I went back to search online for her, I read she had passed away in January, very young, only 28. So maybe I could follow up on this idea in her behalf, as one of the solutions we agreed on. What I cannot stress enough is that all this reform I bring up is by VOLUNTARY participation, ie free choice. NONE of this level of reform can be imposed by govt, that's my WHOLE POINT. we are talking about political BELIEFS so those must be chosen and acted up by FREE WILL. That's my whole contention of what is going wrong with govt, this political BULLYING by coercion and exclusion, instead of Consent of the Governed.
Sorry this was not clear, my WHOLE argument is publlc policy and authority should reflect CONSENT of the people affected, thus my INSISTENCE on mediating conflicts so policies are written and passed by CONSENSUS (example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service that is well written and passed Unanimously by Consensus of Congress, see ethics-commission.net so YES it CAN be done. Laws CAN be written well enough to pass by consensus if we take the time to edit and work out where we AGREE on central standards)
For G.T. who is convinced I am hardly different from the "Jim Crow" bigots who want to keep enforcing privileges for themselves under law while excluding other people relegated to 'separate but equal' positions,
all I can say is that the outreach I do to try to bring together the gay activists segregated politically is not like anyone else I know. When my transgender friend, I just met at the UU fellowhip I rejoined this year, found out I was trying to support the Log Cabin Republicans in working with the liberal LGBT progressive activists,
I was strongly criticized with "WHY would you want to work with Republicans? THEY don't want you!" I said that the Republicans had succeeded in changing their state platform to REMOVE the references to homosexuality as sin and replaced the terms with "sexual sins" that covered all abuses, which I totally agreed with and APPLAUDED. They also succeeded in defending the RIGHT to choose reparative therapy, which I thought was much needed instead of banning it altogether as not even a choice. On both counts, highly controversial and both contested, I felt it was URGENT to support the Log Cabin Republicans and other gay activists within the Republican Party fighting to represent LGBT rights, and even winning elected positions of party Chairs that other members were refusing to recognize. More support was needed to make sure there is reconciliation so we can move forward with constructive reforms we can all agree on, if they are written and passed collaboratively and not pushed adversarially which divides people against each other.
My LGBT friend did NOT understand why it was important to make such alliances. I said we needed to come together and unify all the support across the board.
So G.T. I may not contribute much to the movement, but little things like this to build bridges
where there are HUGE gaps, can only make people and relations stronger in working on common goals,
DESPITE our political differences. We can't let that get in the way of solving our local and national problems.
So you may see me as some kind of bigot, but whatever my personal views are, I will support the HECK out of people trying to defend their beliefs from oppression. Even asking to invite and bring together the younger activists within the Texas GOP with the more seasoned activists in the progressive camps of the LGBT community who have never met much less worked together. Why not? These leaders NEED to work together to achieve common goals. That's just a given!
But I had to stop and EXPLAIN it to my LGBT friend who was just plain SHOCKED and APPALLED I would reach out to Republicans. Why not, when those activists are fighting tooth and nail to get reforms through, while being treated as nonmembers when they are winning elected positions within their own party, they deserve nothing but support to resolve whatever is causing that divide messing things up for them.
I thought they did an outstanding job pushing for reforms that are monumental for a party as conservative as Texas is culturally.
Anyway I wanted to post this for G.T. from the email I got on Log Cabin Republican updates.
G.T. what kind of "anti-gay bigot" tries to support the gay Republicans in defending their reforms to their own party platform and tries to bring them together with the progressive LGBT activists so they can consolidate and support common efforts. Can you find any other activists trying to help the LGBT outreach and reforms unite together on where they agree in language between the parties to stop further division:
============================
This email was sent to you by Log Cabin Republicans. To ensure delivery, please add [email protected] to your address book.
Washington, D.C. — Today, Democrats in the United States Senate and House of Representatives led by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Congressman David Cicilline (D-RI) introduced their version of LGBT civil rights legislation titled The Equality Act.
"It is widely known that Log Cabin Republicans has long supported, lobbied, and advocated for comprehensive LGBT non-discrimination legislation, but we share hesitations about the Equality Act expressed by a number of organizations including LGBT advocates on the left and other civil rights groups," Log Cabin Republicans National Executive Director Gregory T. Angelo stated. "Some of our staunchest Republican allies in Congress with unassailable records in favor of LGBT equality have indicated similar concerns with this legislation. The full text of the Equality Act was only provided to Log Cabin Republicans late last night, mere hours prior to the bill's formal introduction. We will review this bill with our allies in Congress and National Board of Directors prior to taking any official position. Log Cabin Republicans does not operate on the timetables of others; ultimatums are not the way to grow coalitions."
Log Cabin Republicans is the nation’s largest Republican organization representing LGBT conservatives and allies. The more than 30-year old organization has state and local chapters nationwide, a full-time office in Washington, D.C., a federal political action committee and state political action committees.
Last edited:
