Talk:Log Cabin Republicans

Homosexual only?

Um, about this bit of the article:

Log Cabin Republicans is a gay and lesbian rights organization, not an "LGBT" organization. Log Cabin Republicans do not take a stand on transgender rights because they believe transgenderism and sexual orientation are not the same thing. Applying the "LGBT" label to them is to force conformity on them, epitomizing one of the problems with the PC police and group think of the left. I'm a member of LCR.

YIKES! Way to turn curious readers off to your message. Is that what LCR is about? More "group think" us-against-them rhetoric, just under a different label? I'm not talking about transgendered (I agree with you), I'm talking about the sweeping generalizations about "the left"--who are not all one thing. Is there a way to add a "Stinky Attitude" section to the wiki, a heads-up "Nope, you haven't found rational brethren here, either. Keep looking." But don't worry, I'm being facetious. I won't hold the whole LCR responsible for you. But I can't promise that everyone wouldn't.

... Moving right along... I agree the opening statement should not be LGBT. The LCR website says: "...to advocate equal rights for all Americans, including gays and lesbians." Currently the article opens with the misleading: "... and advocates for LGBT rights." If you Google: site:logcabin.org +transgendered and then +bisexual the returns are only references to outside sources on their site, nothing that specifically advocates for transgendered or bisexual. But LGBT should definitely be a category, considering the first I ever heard of LCR was at their booth at Capitol Pride 98 (DC), a self-promoted GLBT event. They also team up with LGBT advocates like the HRC because of limited shared interests. 02:25, 08 November 2010 (UTC)

It is prudent to note that there is no such word as transgendered. Transgenderism is not a procedure for most people, and transgender already functions as an adjective not as a noun nor a verb. Identifying a person as "transgendered" or as "a transgender" can be disparaging (analogous to "bisexualed"). This is cited in GLAAD's Media Style Guidelines. Any citations from articles using this misconstruction should include "sic". --RKrause (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"The name has been harshly criticized by other LGBTI groups because it does not specifically identify the organization as representing persons who self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersexual.[citation needed] However, such harsh criticisms have not been launched against The National Stonewall Democrats nor its local chapters."

Most gay groups would consider the word Stonewall to be a reference to the Stonewall riots, a major event in the history of gay rights in the US. So Stonewall Democrats don't get criticized for their name not specificially identifying them as gay because it does specifically identify them as gay, the same way Outright Libertarians and Lavender Greens have names that specifically identify them as gay. Log Cabin Republicans picked a name that, aside from the fact that they use it, doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality. Weither you feel that merits criticism or not, it makes them pretty much unique. 68.234.12.90 06:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

The "British" spellings in this article are actually Australian, and they get there because the article was written by an Australian. There is no rule that says that American spellings have to be used in any article on any topic. It's not my fault that Americans were too lazy to write this article themselves. :) Adam 06:17, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Who said the article had to be written at all.219.93.174.110 04:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobody, but it is clear that you had some reason in wanting to read it. 66.108.4.183 11:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Nash's Companion

Of course it should be written in American English, as it is a US organisation. Strong national ties to a topic mean that it should be written in that country's version of English. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree with the demand for American English simply because this is a US organization. I think the author's own proper English should be the standard (especially considering that American English is not the universal standard for the language). However it certainly brings up the question of what to do when an article is edited by someone using spellings different from the original author! Full disclosure: US educated American here. 65.32.96.200 (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Wm. Malmstrom, Clearwater, FL

We apply common sense and try to standardize; In this case it is a United States group so that would seem logical. No huge concern either way as long as the communication still flows. -- Banjeboi 09:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Stonewall Democrats chapters

I've removed said listing (while leaving the overall paragraph intact), as it doesn't really have a purpose here. If people want to know what the chapters are, they can visit its page. Quentin mcalmott 17:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No List of Gay Republicans?

Wikipedia has no article for List of Gay Republicans, this article is the only mentioned for that search. It seems a useful topic given the Mark Foley scandal.

What an ignorant and stupid comment. --131.159.0.7 (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that it's relevant information to this article, but you can look in Category:Gay_politicians for information on that topic. That talk page might be a better place to discuss this since gay politicians are not specifically apposite to an article or discussion about Log Cabin Republicans LRTrekkie (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Log Cabin Republican Members

"The group consists of gays, lesbians and bisexuals who are also supporters of the Republican Party."

The party is not made up of only gays, lesbians and bisexuals, but simply made up of those who support LGBT rights; the definition of Log Cabin Republican should be changed, and I will try to do so myself. Gronkmeister | ^Talk/ _Contrib 16:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe you are correct. Clearly, they do not investigate a person's sexual orientation if he wants to join LogCabinRepublicans, but I do believe that the group is of gays who are Republicans, not people who are Republicans who support gay rights. 66.108.105.21 18:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

They definitely accept heterosexual allies as members too. See their membership page which gives a very wide definition of who a Log Cabin Republican is: We are like-minded Americans who believe in limited government, a strong national defense, lower taxes, personal responsibility and free markets. That's it. And then About Log Cabin, which says No matter your race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation-please join the Lob Cabin family as we work to build a more inclusive GOP and a better America. So they clearly invite members of all sexual orientations, including heterosexuals. — coelacan talk — 15:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification and the sourcing. 66.108.105.21 16:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Trivia

If anyone decides to add a Trivia section, or some sort of pop culture references section, it should be noted that the Log Cabin Republicans were at the center of the plot of last week’s American Dad! --Chewbacca1010 07:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There's also Maggie Simpson's pink elephant ballon and "GAY PRESIDENT IN 2084" in Pygmoelian (though I don't think Log Cabin was mentioned by name). AnonMoos (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

???

"In 2005, these groups united to do political combat with the Religious Right, and to re-assert the role of moderates and liberals within the Republican party."

What is this, a comic book? 190.8.64.74 14:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Filling gaps in history

A great deal happened between the late 1970s and George W Bush directly related to the subject of this article, arguably what has been missing has been why this group is known and why under normal Wikipedia standards of notability it should have an article. I've added in highly sourced NPOV content regarding its rise to prominence during the 1996 presidential campaign. Much of it comes from two published books from Simon and Schuster. Also, there was little internet activity in 1995 and 1996 to produce highly linkable raw content beyond published books or for-pay archives of news articles. But the sources are all there for what I added. There is probably more I've missed, as well as information subsequent to that period leading up to Log Cabin's criticism of GWBush. Perhaps other editors can pitch in?NYDCSP 01:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Poor sourcing of Briggs "research"

There is no adequate verifiable sourcing of the content about a "researcher" looking into the Reagan-Briggs connection. Until there is, this looks a lot like independent research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia and should be deleted. I'll let the author give it a shot at cleaning it up for about a month or so, then it should be deleted.NYDCSP 01:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You gave a year and still no sourcing. Therefore, it's getting deleted. 201.6.78.58 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

good call - it seemed like WP:NOR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.83.80.199 (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Name choice

The article provides no information for the reasoning behind the choice of the name "Log Cabin Republicans." Any information on that? Flourdustedhazzn 04:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Is it a reference to Lincoln? If someone has well-sourced information on this, please put it in the article. -Diego Gravez 19:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I inserted some info about the name from the group's website. Their public statement implies the name was chosen because the Emancipation Proclamation of Lincoln (a Republican born in a log cabin) represented a "new birth of freedom" for America, and they want to continue to promote freedom. I also referred to speculations about Lincoln's sexual preference and added a link to the Wikipedia article about Lincoln's sexuality. (I'm new at this; hope this is okay.) 75.185.55.2 (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Transgender references in lead paragraph

Are these sentences really necessary in the lead paragraph? What purpose do they serve?

"The organization does not take a position on transgender rights. When LCR talks about who they are and what they believe, they say nothing about transgender rights or issues."

It seems to me that there is nothing in the name "Log Cabin Republicans" that implies in any way that they have taken a position on transgender issues or that they represent transgender individuals. So, given the three preceding sentences that that explicitly say "gay and lesbian", why is it necessary to say, in the lead paragraph, that they've said nothing about transgender issues?

On the other hand, if the name of the organization was "LGBT Republicans" and they took no position on transgender (or bisexual) rights, then that would be worth mentioning in the lead. As it is, however, it may be worthy of mentioning in the article (if it can be shown that it is relevant), but definitely not in the lead. -Diego Gravez 19:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

To Diego: I intentionally put the sentence that LCR does not take a position on transgender rights in the lead paragraph because some people in the pro-LGBT camp previously and incorrectly wrote in prior versions that LCR was an LGBT rights organization. Many people assume that because a group is a gay rights group that the group is automatically an LGBT rights group. This is not the case. Thank you for leaving the sentence intact. -ClydeOnline 6:02 PM EST 9 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClydeOnline (talk • contribs) 22:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There are rumors that Lincoln was gay. Surely that plays a role in the name of the organization. Can this be attested and included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.120.204 (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

LGBT categorization

There's a bit of back and forth on adding Category:LGBT wings of political parties. I have restored this categorization on the reasoning that the "Bisexual" and "Transgendered" in LGBT is inclusive, not exclusive. Transgendered organizations that are not gay rights organizations would be similarly included. Being LG is sufficient for LGBT categorization. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems necessary to me that the article is included in some category of political organizations of gay people. I'd be open to changing it to a different category, if a more appropriate category exists, but I didn't see a category that fit better when I searched the category tree. If those who support changing the category could suggest a more appropriate category that would still connect this article with other gay political organizations, that would be really helpful... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Log Cabin Republicans uses the abbreviation LGBT to describe its membership on this page of its official web site. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

History

Does their website really state, "The GOP rose to power because it embraced the ideals of equality imagined by our nation's founding fathers and ensured by our Constitution. When Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, a 'new birth of freedom,' was indeed given to our country. Now, more than 150 years later, the GOP has another chance to choose fairness over discrimination, equality over bigotry, hope over fear, and freedom over oppression. One day in time we will be able to suckle penis and goo gab like gays."

I wouldn't be surprised if it did, but my guess would be vandalism (and this is pure conjecture) by a fellow Republican.