First Out Gay GOP Platform Member{ Why Gay and Republican?}

Photo by Sasha Haagensen

This is part of the interview Rachel Hoff an active gay republican gave to interviewer Katy Steinmetz at Time. The areas I posted here are in my view the most important views of her as a lesbian and as a republican. She says in the interview she has always been a republican,  so in her world there was nothing else. When you grow up in a particular party or even religion and accept those ideas early own as your ideas, it becomes more difficult to see the other side as anything but “them.” The same rule doesn’t necessarily apply if you have been raised as a democrat and that is because Democrats are not as strict indoctrinators on either religion or the way you vote but particularly the way you vote.  Most parents I’ve known including mines are proud to have their kids take the initiative in that front. Again, this has been my own experience.

I happen to know this first hand because when I voted for the first time I was already questioning my sexuality and my first vote was republican, mainly because of national defense issues and the way we were being told about the domino effect in the GOP. ‘If a nation falls to communism anywhere it eventually will reach us.’  Makes no sense but that was being sold by the GOP and even through I had my doubts  I wanted my nation to be prepared for war and ahead in defense of the USSR (Communist Russia).

Social programs, social security, the poor,  the money spent by the federal government did not touch me except I thought I was paying too much taxes. I was going to do very well eventually I thought, so social security and other things dealing with help from the government was not touching me.
The gay thing was neither here nor there because both parties had the same ideology on this except the democrats were more open to some civil rights being available to all and I really like that.  This eventually brought me over even though it took a long time. Once inside I was able to open my mind of how this political party (gop) stays vibrant even when they loose an election cycle or two. This is a party that is being driven by the very well off but also by the opposite, people who ignore the idea they will need the government.  We all do at one time or another wether we loose a job or become ill.
Some how they don’t worry too much about those issues. Their thinking does not go there.  Most people buy insurance, have a retirement plan and think they are covered.

Once we look at our national budget and how money is spent we realize is not the people that come here that take our jobs or money.  People simply wont do certain jobs. When you take all the numbers as a whole you are able to see that most people do not become wealthy and people will still need the government and those programs they like to criticize weather is the courts, the IRS, supplement their health insurance with Medicaid or Medicare if they have become disabled and poor. Just think about every Republican candidate for office of president. They have all run on the issue of government spending. Not on the military or other areas but on social programs. They criticize the lawyers for suing and for the courts for awarding big settlements. May be the candidate now will be different and wont critique the lawyers since part of his time he spends with them suing. This week is a new law suit for $10 millions.

If the manufacturers, builders, etc.,  that sold goods or work in a particular enterprise that declared one of the chapters of protection, then they get stiffed. Who should they blame? Im making a point that most of us will need assistance from our government wether we deny it or not. We simply don’t know when but statistics show that most people will. We will need protection from creditors, hospitals, other individuals and even the government itself.

Ms. Hoff  personally knew only one side of the story between Dems and GOP’rs and even when her side did not offer her marriage equality for her and her partner or even the most mundane civil rights straight people don’t even know they have, that was ok because she was getting them through the other side. But Im sure she did not liked it. One might say one day the GOP will also be behind all of those things it fights against now, never mind that it would have never happen in any of our generations if it wasn’t for the other political party.  Why criticize the “GOP” party for being anti gay when it is ok for most people to come out, marry and walk with the head high knowing that they are socially on equal footing with straights. So what if your own party fights that. That doesn’t touch those people that are not able to get in other people’s shoes but only their own.

Even with what we’ve won already thanks to a gay friendly president, the democrats and the active commitments of LGBT in this nation we are still at peril. All we need is a GOP President filling the court with Alito’s and Clarence Thomas’s and good bye gay rights. There still constant fights from states even denying marriage to LGBT even with a Supreme Court decision making it the law of the land.
What does Ms. Hoff thinks when she fights for anti gay Republicans?

Why does racially poor whites usually go GOP? 

They live off the government and side with the politicians that want to take or curtail their benefits.  This is because they believe that they deserve to be taken care off and no matter which party wins they will be taken care off but they will vote not with their benefits which they see as deserve income because the government did not supply them with jobs (even though they are the ones that did not even finish H.S). Their socially, religious ideas of how the nation should be is paramount.  God will take care of them as long as they don’t side with the “devil and the homos.”

It’s kind of funny when I talked with whites in the south or coming from the there. They contradicted with what they said and what they were doing.  But even in NY and south Florida you find white and hispanics that will always vote GOP because they are the party that sticks closer to god and want the bible in schools and in the courts and would like the government to be a theocracy without even knowing the word. They read their bibles and interpret that things need to get real bad here so their christ will come back. The same with very religious jews. I have personally heard of this in my own family (I have a big family).  

When Ms. Hoff tried introducing a gay/lesbian friendly rule into the GOP platform for this coming election she pleaded: “there are diverse and sincerely held views on marriage” within the party. “We are your daughters. We are your sons, your friends, your neighbors, your colleagues, the couple who sits next to you in church,” she said. “Freedom means freedom for everyone, including gays and lesbians … And all I ask today is you include me and those like me.” By an unofficial vote of about 30 to 82, the amendment failed.

Adam Gonzalez, Publisher

                                                                        _*_

What do Republicans stand for in your view?

What the Internet told me was that they stood for individual freedom, for limited government, for the idea that you could make your own decisions better than the government could make them for you, whether that was decisions about how to spend your personal life or decisions about how to spend your money, and a strong national defense. That was something that was always very important to me and went on to define my career.

When did you first realize there were parts of that party that don’t approve of homosexuality?

I remember that was a very, very hard day for me. I went to college in Massachusetts, and my senior year was 2004. That was the year the state Supreme Court issued their ruling [allowing same-sex marriage], which was the first in the country, a real landmark case. My senior year was also when I realized I was gay. So I had just come out. And I went down to the state capitol to observe the protests.

There was this gay community, which I was intrigued by but not a part of. And there were the conservatives on the other side, who had this political belief that I was supposed to be for because that’s what you believed if you were conservative. And I didn’t feel part of either group, and I didn’t really know what group I wanted to be a part of. But the conservatives’ rhetoric and their signs and their whole approach was very hurtful, very offensive.

At this point, more than a decade later, do you still have that same feeling of being torn between two groups or have you reconciled that ambivalence?

I get that question a lot, like how can you be gay and Republican? Those are both parts of who I am, so I don’t have to reconcile them. I have to reconcile my interactions with both of those communities and both of their beliefs about the other community. Even including the last two days, I have received more backlash and opposition in the gay community for being Republican than I have in Republican circles for being gay.

Socially it’s just very, very acceptable within the gay community to say mean things about the Republicans, to, when you meet a gay Republican, to accuse them of being a self-hating gay person. Whereas for Republicans there is certainly a lot of harmful rhetoric and hurtful rhetoric. We see that in the platform we passed this week. But on a personal basis, I can’t think of a single time where anybody has said anything mean to my face, other than not supporting my constitutional rights. Clearly that’s offensive to me in a different way.

So when you get that incredulous question about how you are both gay and Republican, what do you tell people?

What usually comes out is that I clearly disagree with my party on this issue, on marriage, on LGBT rights. But that’s one part of who I am and that’s one issue that I care about. Were I to be a Democrat because they’re for equality and LGBT rights, there would be a whole list of issues I would disagree with that party about. So I wouldn’t feel more at home there, just because on this one issue I’m like-minded. To me, being an Independent has never really been an attractive option, though I did think about it over the last couple days.

What did you think being on the platform committee was going to be like and what were you hoping to achieve?

I ran for the platform committee because I wanted to attempt to soften language on LGBT issues, though I also have other priorities like national security issues and representing D.C. First of all, it was important that I be vocal about being gay. I’ve been out for 10 years now. So it’s not like I came out at the platform committee. But I really wanted to say it there, because I thought it was important that the people in the room, particularly those who are in favor of traditional marriage and against LGBT rights, be reminded that they were talking to a gay person.

When our platform comes out next week, it’s going to be a big letter to all Americans, including LGBT Americans, about why they should vote for us. And right now I don’t think they have much reason to do so. … I hoped that I might have some sort of softening effect on what people said and did. It does not appear to have had that effect based on the language that came out of the committee, but I still think that it’s important for people to know that you’re in the room.

Did you think you could get the votes or were you more intent on saying your piece, without much hope of that?

The amendment that I offered was not for marriage equality or to support the Supreme Court Obergefell decision or to embrace LGBT rights or to address the transgender bathroom issue. I really wanted to keep it focused on what I thought was a reasonable approach, just acknowledging and respecting that Republicans have different beliefs on these issues. Had I gone in there with some sort of marriage equality amendment, I certainly would have had zero hope that it would have passed. I was optimistic that the amendment that I offered would get more support, but I don’t think there was a time where I thought it would pass.

There was a back and forth in which another delegate argued for LGBT inclusive language and someone else responded to her, alleging that she was suggesting everyone who didn’t agree with her was a bigot. People clapped in agreement. She said that wasn’t her intention, but it was tense. What were you thinking during that exchange?

The reality is that all of us who support LGBT rights got frustrated. Another member offered an amendment to stand with LGBT people around the world who are targeted by violence and terrorism, and that went down in flames. In another section, the Orlando attack was mentioned, so I offered an amendment to describe it as ‘the terrorist attack on the LGBT community in Orlando.’ And they wouldn’t even do that. We knew that the platform committee wasn’t our home turf, and I did not expect to win every amendment, but I also did not expect the rigidity with which the committee would refuse to even mention the LGBT community more broadly in a positive way.

What do you make of that rigidity?

I don’t know. It could be just extremely well organized and tightly controlled influence from the traditional marriage activists. It could also be that people … are afraid of some slippery slope, wherein that would put us down that path toward supporting LGBT rights. Or maybe there’s a concern to even a single positive reference would hurt us with social conservatives, but I think that’s absurd. I give social conservatives much more credit than being turned off by language like that.

Is there a risk the party is running of alienating young voters by not being more inclusive of the LGBT community?

The demographic realities are clear on this issue. Young voters overwhelming support marriage equality—and even young Republican voters support marriage equality. There’s a lot in the Republican Party that could appeal to young voters, but they won’t even consider voting Republican because of our stance on this issue. Right now our party is not even an option for them, by and large. But that’s not the reason we should evolve on those issues. The reason why we need to change our stance is that it’s the right thing to do and because it’s in line with Republican principles of liberty, freedom and equality.

The complete interview can be read by clicking on Time.