Critical reading skills:  Take a look at the LA Times article and see if you can find a single source that supports their assertion that "there even are calls for what some have dubbed a "pink purge" of high-ranking gay Republicans on Capitol Hill and in the administration."  You won't find a scrap to support that.

Not one person is quoted saying that gays should be purged from the GOP.  To the contrary, the conservative Christian groups are quoted saying they are not calling for a purge.  FRC lobbyist McClusky: "We're not calling for what I've heard referred to as a pink purge."  Concerned Women of America hag Mike Mears is paraphrased: "purging gays from the GOP would not necessarily help the evangelical cause."  Republican National Committee Press Secretary Tracey Schmitt: "The Republican Party welcomes individuals from all walks of life."

Now, when you can't even get FRC to say there should be a purge -- and remember, FRC has said gays are the domestic equivalent of al Qaeda -- you know that your "pink purge" thesis is in serious trouble.

The liberal-leaning LA Times eagerly picked up on this meme from far-left blogs and ran with it without any evidence.  I can only speculate why, but here's a guess about what's really going on: among traditionally identified minority groups, gay voters tend to be the least loyal to the Democratic party of all (save the Hispanics).  Exit polls for 2004 have 23% of gays voting for Bush -- and this after he supported the marriage amendment! -- with 25% having voted for him in 2000.  That's close to a million gay Americans who voted for Bush in 2004.  Democrats, close to an election, are trying to do whatever they can to chip away at that block.  They've been trying the insulting and sadly uninformed "oxymoron" argument since the early '90s, and somehow that didn't persuade anyone (gee, wonder why), so I guess the best they can do now is try to scare us to death.  Sorry, but we know how to read.

Are we really that tough to figure out, MayorBob?  There's, like, 15 gay conservative blogs out there, oodles of books written by gay conservatives, even gay Republican organizations will tons of material on their websites (check out indegayforum), and they are all willing to explain what they believe, why, and how they reconcile the contradictions you perceive.  I don't suppose you tried to read any of them?

Let me try to shed some light on your puzzlement.  I disagree with Republican elected officials on gay rights issues.  I say "elected officials" because surveys show that my views aren't that much of a minority among Republican voters; 43% favor civil unions, around 20% favor gay marriage, and 30% oppose the gay marriage amendment.  Not a majority, but not an insignificant number, either.

However, I disagree with the Democrats so much more fundamentally, and on so many other issues, that I have reached a conclusion that it's going to be easier to elect Republicans who agree with me on gay issues than it is to elect Democrats who agree with me on the many other issues that face us in public life.

There are some people who think that gay people have a duty to make gay rights their single-voter issue.  Namely, if I am faced with a vote between a functional Socialist who supports gay rights and a Republican who opposes them, I have to go for the Socialist.  Sorry, that isn't how it works.  I am an American, too, and I care about my country, and I'm not going to selfishly put one issue in front of all others.  This plan is also stupid as a matter of strategy; it makes no sense for all proponents of gay rights to work exclusively in one party, especially when so many Republican voters already agree with us.

To crib from a speech by Terry Pratchett, although I'm an atheist the -particular- church I consider myself not attending is the Catholic church. As such I'm generally cognizant of the problems facing "the Church" in the modern era where membership in first world nations like America is in decline but conversion in Africa and S. America is booming.

American Catholics want birth control, maybe a little stem cell research and just occassionally the ability to sentence a black man to death. These Catholics have a lot of money (and thus influence) but their numbers are small relative to the overall Church membership - they are known colloquially as cafteria catholics; picking and choosing which particular aspect of church dogma they follow.

The other Catholics aka the Third World Catholics are doctrinaire, down with the program, lets pretend Vatican II never happened, and get back to the "basics" such as the Catholic church is the one TRUE Church. Given full rein, these guys would rather see the church shrink in size (ditching the posers) than see the message corrupted.  Organizations like Opus Dei are symptomatic of this faction.

With the horrific Catholic church coverup of child abuse, it is my belief that the Catholic Church in America is doomed and as such worth cutting loose. At some point, the Vatican will realize this and swerve its message to serve the nations (like Brazil and the Phillipines) which appreciate a fundamentalist line. The Jesuits (think of these guys as the intellectual wing of the Catholic church) are slowly being shunted aside for the Opus Dei  (the neo-cons). Its a 'radicalization' in slow motion - that recent speech by the Pope on how Islam sucks? The trend says to expect more of that.

So what does this have to do with the GOP? Its all about the Demographics baby. America is changing its ethnic makeup to accomodate a rising Hispanic population. For the GOP to preserve its majority it has to have certain segments of the population in its pocket. Sure it has the 'white south', but they aren't breeding fast enough. So in casting around for another population segment that their message can appeal to, the hispanics are the best prospect; they don't come attached with the "political baggage"  from the black populace and their "values" concern overrides little things like fiscal responsibility.
After all - no one thinks that having 10 kids makes fiscal sense.

When the American economy explodes (and not in a good way) over the next two decades, the GOP's fiscal wing will be shattered. The party will inevitably revert to populist politics (bread and circuses) and this proposed GOP purge is merely the bow wave.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

Maybe you've been seeing a different set of Catholics than I have, but most of the Third World catholics are happy to pick and choose at the cafeteria.  Granted, their choices are different.  But in South America, which is strongly Catholic abortion rates are higher than in many developed countries, charity is lower than in most developed countries, rates of non-marital sex (affairs as well as pre-marital relations) are higher than in the U.S.

Personally, I believe that to stem from the notion that the harder the world is around you, the more committing serious sins becomes normal to you, and yet the more you value what you perceive as purity in your spiritual ideal. It may even go so far that you support a church that would have you cast into purgatory. Because you think you deserve it. And if you think you deserve it, you have no qualms about casting in it anyone else who has faults.

As I posted in the subq, I think characterizing Mike Rodgers as a Republican is rather debatable. Not only is the guy pro-gay marriage, but he also seems to identify as an anti-war, anti-Bush progressive on his blog, and the most media attention he's gotten has been from liberal media and leftist websites. All of that seems to put him out of the Big Tent.

Ever since I've heard about Dybul's swearing-in and the "Mother-In-Law" reference, I've heard it coupled with speculation about how right-wingers must be going nuts over Condi.   But really, the only blog discussion I've seen on the topic is from left-wingers, speculating about how right-wingers are going nuts over Condi, and always quoting the same handful of spokesdrones from the big professional moralist groups.  There's almost zero traction on this issue from individual conservative blogs.

When you really get down to it, social conservatives have lost on the gay issue. "They're depraved and inhuman" gave way to "They're not manly", which became "They're sick and dirty", which is now watered down to "They want special rights".  Sure, there are still a few freakouts, but when you look at the arguments that the GOP has to formulate to keep the big tent big, you get an idea of how few righties really care about intolerance any more, even among the Evangelical core.

(is 3fingerspointback)

It's not a tent.  It's a gazebo.

A big, big gazebo!