Sanders probably read something about Hitler being gay (many have argued that) and Sanders had an epiphany: "Gays can be fascists too! So they aren't really bad after all!"

As more and more Republicans become convinced that gays can be fascists too, they will accept gays and gay rights (heck, now that they are learning that so many of their fellow Republican politicians are gay, it shouldn't be long).

Another epiphany among Republicans may have occurred this week when the Iranian leader told the world "there are no homosexuals in Iran". Heaven forbid that anybody start comparing the Republican Party to the leadership of the next oil-rich Asian nation to be attacked by the Bush Regime.

andersdl,

Good point. In the past, the fascists promoted Christianity to show the rubes they were easily differentiated from the atheistic Soviets, and now they must differentiate themselves from fundamentalist Muslims. I just hope that there are not too many Americans who are fooled into thinking that Republicans have some humanistic values simply on the basis of accepting gay rights (as Morford may be interpreted as saying). If Republicans accept gay rights, it may be for a number of reasons, but humanism (a concern for, and the valuing of, all of humanity) is not one of them. A humanistic Republican makes as much sense as an atheistic Baptist.

I don't see what the big deal about gay marriage is. People should be free to choose whoever they want to be with. Let gays go into the eternal bliss of marriage and the pain of divorce like everybody else.
Let them become legally responsible for another person like the rest of us. Why let a segment of society off the hook.

Republicans, pathological personalities that they are, see the world in black and white, you're either with us or against us. They don't really want to think, but if they do they begin to realize that life is grey and often confusing. It will be interesting to see if this mayor stays in the republican party, now that he's seen the grey. I mean light.

I'm sorry but I am not moved by this at all. Why does it always take a personal 'tragedy' for these politicians to change their views?

The arguments the guy is making for his change of heart have been around for ages. It is certain that he was aware of them before and for a long time. So what changed? So he found his daughter and member of his team are gay and he wants the best for them and therefore now has a change of heart about gays and lesbians?

What if he did NOT have this daughter or his team? What then?

I am sorry if i sound cruel but I have no sympathy for this guy. People like him are able to impose incredible amounts of suffering on others because the suffering does not affect them.

Am I the only one who thought his whimpering presentation was hogwash and forced?

This was no voluntary change of heart on his part. He had no choice.

If his daughter suddenly returned from I'm-Cured-Of-Being-Homo Camp and announced, "Daddy, I'm cured!", you would likely see this guy announce, "Well, perhaps I moved a little too quickly the other week."

Not buying it.

I am moved by the writer's sense of compassion and recognition that all of us have the capacity to change and grow, no matter how entrenched we may be in our belief systems. I believe that it is human nature to grow and evolve. Some may say just the opposite, but it doesn't make sense that a creation of divine design would be other than infinitely progressive(not a political term). Whether life as we know it continues to survive is of less concern to me than that we, as spiritual creations having a human experience, continue to evolve in Consciousness. The deep concern in today's world is that we see each other as separate from each other, and in competition for limited resources. My Truth is that We Are One, and each of us is an individuation of what is known as God, Allah, Buddha, The Force, Universal Mind or Nature...or you name your own. Our Purpose is to remember the Truth of who we are. We have Infinite Life, so death is simply a transition, a change in form from physical to non-physical. For those who do not believe in eternal life or the spiritual nature of humankind, it matters not. We may not be able to prove this empirically, now, but that does not change the nature of reality. What Jerry Sanders represents is the capacity of each of us to transform fundamentally. Whether left, right or center, fundamentalist or atheist or any other range of diversity, there is room for a movement of consciousness from exclusive to inclusive. If not now, when; if not you, who?

peace,
st john

While I can understand the cynicism of earlier posts, as a resident of San Diego (and a gay one at that), this was a wonderful surprise for us. Since CA is trying to legalize gay unions, (while the nasty, hateful proposition that outlawed gay marriage is tied up in court still) cities are sending their own little proclamations of support or opposition to the legislation to the Governator.

Here in San Diego, the city council drafted a proclamation of support with a veto-proof majority. Sanders didn't have to do anything, he could have kept his mouth shut, but he didn't. And it was hardly opportunistic timing. In fact he couldn't have timed it worse since our mayoral race is about to get under way, and the potential Republican opponents have already seized on this issue.

Given the circumstances, it's very hard to doubt his sincerity. It took a lot of guts and if he walks away feeling like a better human being, then more power to him.

It took a lot of guts for Sanders to make this comment.
Compare that to Cheeney and his gay daughter.
I've always felt that as more gays came out of closet and people realized that their nice cousin Al or co-worker Jane were gay but otherwise regular folks they'd have more compassion towards gays.

Just like pot smoking was evil until every family had someone who smoked and they weren't dope fiends

Jeopardy answer, "Barry Goldwater". Jeopardy question, "Who was the last honest Republican?". Seriously though, Goldwater favoured allowing gays to serve in the military. He was a Lieutenant General in the Air Force Reserve.

i'm an atheist and not crazy about repub's but i did send sanders an email thanking him for his support now for gay marriage. i am sure it wasn't easy to reverse the position

I've been tricked too often to buy into it. This is as much of an act as Chris Crocker's "Tears for Britney" video. I'm calling BS.

I agree completely with Hashfunction.

Prior to discovering that his daughter is gay he was totally OK with bashing gays; some of them the daughters of other people, but now that it effects him, now he's seen the "light". That is just so typical of the GOP. And as the above poster wrote, if it hadn't been his daughter, he would have happily continued discriminating against gays, even though they are the sons and daughters of other people.

Jerk.

St John: Eloquent & enlightened posting. Thank you.

Living in Europe where people can get married in a church a million times and it isn't legal, I don't understand this whole thing. The only legal marriage is at city hall. A marriage is a legal relationship between two people. It often involves things like property rights... It is a form of a business deal only with emotion. Anything else is just window dressing.

I thought ALL Republicans secretly liked gays? Thats why they oppose gay marriage...they want them all to remain single and available

dlnelson7 September 26th, 2007 2:52 pm:

Yes, that's right. Marriage is nothing more than a legal union here, too, and that's where it should end.

We, however, have something you don't have: the two-faced, hypocritical, vile Christian Right/Reich that has a stranglehold on politicians in the United States. Although these people are in the minority here, they are in the business of hijacking our freedoms, liberties, and our right to be free of THEM.

I am not swayed one bit by the love-fest here. Does anybody really believe that his come-to-Jesus epiphany would have resulted voluntarily, had the other events not happened?

Not on your life.

He made the right decision, however, I firmly believe that those tears and that quivering voice were more out of sorrow for himself and family than for the wider population of people he, his damned party, and the Christian Reich helped oppress.

Dover and others with similar opinions:
"I am not swayed one bit by the love-fest here. Does anybody really believe that his come-to-Jesus epiphany would have resulted voluntarily, had the other events not happened?"

My point is that it usually does take some kind of in-your-face personal experience to trigger such an epiphany. How many of you are moved to radically change a belief by reading about some tragedy across the globe that does not personally affect you? Did the tsunami in Indonesia cause you to stock up on foodstuffs and set up an escape plan in such an event? Doubtful. And, not everyone responds as Sanders did. Cheney does not appear to have made radical changes in his public opinions as a result of Mary's experiences as a lesbian with a life partner and a biological child. But, watch what happens if she is attacked in some way by an "outsider". I am assuming that Dick and Lynne Cheney have the capacity to respond to such an experience very differently than what they have shown so far. The point here is that none of us is really in a position to "know" what the other needs and what motivates them. Most all of our opinions are based on our personal perspective of reality and are not completely objective.

I used to think that I "knew" why people did what they did and based my judgments on that knowing. I still have opinions and am willing to share them, but I also know that they are based on my own beliefs and biases and are subject to change. Jerry Sanders apparently made such a shift and I commend him for the courage it took to be vulnerable.

Peace,
st john

"My point is that it usually does take some kind of in-your-face personal experience to trigger such an epiphany."
st john: you nailed it!
Let's face it, without an emotional, personal investment in some issues, it's very easy to go along with the herd (as so many Republicans do). And given that Republicans are so tightly controlled and spineless, it's refreshing to know that at least some of them are capable of thinking for themselves instead of towing the party line.

I don't wish to engage in an argument with you folks, however:

You need to read some books about certain people and groups. There are people who are sociopaths and psychopaths (and there are groups like that, too, the ones who want all fags to die horrible deaths, for example).

There are conservatives without conscience. Ask John Dean about them. For the most part, the republican party is a party of self-serving people without consciences. Bush, Cheney, Rove come to mind first. The senator from my state is also at the top of the list.

There are Christian Coalition types who are so vile, so immoral, so hateful, they hardly believe in anything higher than themselves. Dobson? Robertson? "Pastor Ted", for God's sake?

I get the impression that I'm supposed to wait for each of these, well, monsters to have a personal epiphany and see the light. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. None of us have the time to wait for these pricks to come to their senses. And if their problem is mental defect (I've already named some names), how is an event going to trigger a change?

I know right from wrong, and they do, too: I've never thought of myself as being any better than the poorest, most downtrodden person on the planet. I know they think they're better than me, however. Sanders also knew right from wrong. He played the game for as long as he could get away with it.

The harm is DONE, and it's doubtful that, in our lifetimes, the harm will be undone.

What Jerry Sanders does from this day forward will be his real testimonial, his real legacy. It's probably too early for me to judge, but I doubt he'll be the next Cindy Sheehan. If he does go down the activist path, then color me wrong...happily.

"I thought ALL Republicans secretly liked gays? Thats why they oppose gay marriage…they want them all to remain single and available"

LOL

A gay republican, like a black republican, or even a female republican, is oxymoronic. There HAS to be something wrong with them.

I'm a bit dismayed by the cynical comments from some of the readers of what, admittedly, might have been too optimistic and charitable an article. It seems as if many readers are so hardened in their own self-righteousness that they are unwilling to believe another-- especially a Republican-- might actually have a change of heart. Moreover, even if that change were real, the consensus appears to be that it took some personal catalyst (in this case, someone's daughter coming out of the closet) to bring about the shift to what all of us agree is a more enlightened view (real or feigned, in this particular case.) I wonder-- to those who discount the individual's supposed epiphany, is it really the case that YOU never made a mistake which was later rectified by exposure to circumstances which pointed out your error? Is such a thing only for those of us who, unlike you, were not born with all the right views already in place? Or is it simply that said Republicans must, to be legitimately considered to have a change of heart,arrive at their new, improved viewpoints by some a priori means alone, as if experience of other people and their troubles (late, but better than never) couldn't POSSIBLY serve as a valid motive for progress in any way?

As I've done here and other threads, I'd like to refer you to a wonderful book and series of books. Conversations with God: Home With God by Neale Donald Walsch, addresses all of these issues in a way that is both respectful of all viewpoints and educational. You may not change your opinions or beliefs, but if you will take the time to read or review some of the Remembrances, the experience will broaden your own perspective.

peace,
st john

I was moved by Morford's piece and by Sanders's epiphany. But I am repelled by the hatefulness and lack of compassion of most of the Common Dreams readers who commented. No wonder our nation is so bitterly divided, when those who purport to be progressives are so churlish, just as bad as the right wingers we all deplore. I don't like Republicans either, but when a man does what Sanders did, for the reasons he did it, I feel his humanity and respect his discovery of liberality.

Sleach, good point. People can be shown the path to enlightenment and at long last decide to take it. If we don't believe in the power of people to change, why do we even bother trying to educate them?

Go right ahead and be appalled by my "hatefulness" and my "lack of compassion". That's your prerogative.

The climate of hatred and intolerance was spawned and nurtured by the republican party in the United States, of which, Sanders is a member.

The republicans, all of them, brought us a climate of gross, hypocritical intolerance of gays, two stolen or rigged presidential elections, a rubber-stamp 109th Congress, a city left for dead, a war that has killed nearly a million people, a war based on lies, the transition of taxpayer wealth to cronies, a climate of false fear and terror, etc.

And you have the gall to be appalled by somebody who believes actions speak louder than words.

Like I said: your problem, not mine.

Sleach,

Good observation. Maybe everybody oughta' give the guy a chance!

As for the article, Mark Morford notes something I hadn't thought of before.

Sanders seems to follow a wondrous, though not often noticed, law of humanistic expansion. It goes something like this: When you find your heart, when you look to your own family and your own life and your own soul for the answers and go beyond the limitations of your political handbook and disregard the bitter decrees force-fed to you by some dogmatic religion or belief system, well, chances are just incredibly good you will emerge a tiny bit more progressive or liberal or open-minded than before. Is that not fascinating?

If many Conservatives are viewed as "uptight", a short label, it definitely IS a big step to loosen up, understnad, and be "convicted" of the viewpoint of others with whom you've disagreed. It doesn't matter how it came about.

It's the pattern for epiphany (a sudden, intuitive perception of or insight into the reality or essential meaning of something, usually initiated by some simple, homely, or commonplace occurrence or experience), which is accompanied by an opening of the self to something larger than what one thought before. It really changes people. Rarely is the change dramatic, but it's there, and it's often memorable enough to make one more open than s/he was before.

I imagine that Sanders knows what he is setting himself up for. He'll get hate mail and hate messages galore. But maybe he can handle that -- most politicians can.

#
st john September 26th, 2007 12:54 pm

I am moved by the writer's sense of compassion and recognition that all of us have the capacity to change and grow, no matter how entrenched we may be in our belief systems.

*************
Always the hope and ... the work.

You said it all in your statement, st john ...

... and always the rigid, unexamined belief systems that cannot entertain the thought that there might be a different way of looking at, perceiving something.

When the walls come tumbling down ... Then perhaps we can reach for each others hands and look into each other's eyes, and recognize that we know each other far more than we do not.

peace ...

ezefler: Absolutely Correct!

Possibly, one republican on the planet who has found morality and/or Christain values. Could there possibly be any more??????!! Seems I vaguely remember there had been some in the distant past.

Don't forget though, that those on the top of the food chain don't care at all about Gay Marriage; but just use the issue to exploit the rabble for more $$$$$$$ and power.

Their only morality is: I've got mine; I want a lot more; the rest of you, fuck off.

If it's impossible for conservatives to have a meaningful change of heart, then it follows that progressives will continue to be an ignored minority. And if that's the case, why even bother with political involvement, action, or for that matter, posting comments on Common Dreams? Just for the sake of being (self)right(ous)? Sounds like political, mental, and spiritual masturbation to me.
Color me hopeful. Hopeful this guy's for real.
I thought the ENTIRE reason why people bother with activism was to change people's minds and hearts. People deserve the benefit of the doubt, particularly from so-called progressives.

ezeflyer, one of my best friends in my profession (teaching) was a gay Republican with rather strong conservative views. I used to remind him that, in this rather small Midwestern town, the very people you will vote for will be the first to get rid of you if they discover that you are gay. He would agree, but would stick to his views. I hope that the day comes when gays and lesbians are accepted as part of the natural order of things, and gays can be Republicans without living with such a contradiction. They will still be wrong, in my view, as Republicans, but they won't fear for their jobs because they are gay or lesbian.

I hope that Sanders' "conversion" is real, and is a harbinger of changes to come on the part of many of our local politicians. That's where real change will occur in this country, not on the federal level.

drift:
If conservatives had a meaningful change of heart they would become liberals.

retired:
Gay conservative Republicans living with such a contradiction are also masochistic enablers or idiots.

The "straight, white male" GOP? I assume that you're leaving the President and his boyfriend, Victor Ashe, out of this. And, of course, Ken Mehlman, Scott McClellan, Karl Rove, Jeff Gannon, Patrick McHenry, Larry Craig, Mitch McConnell, well, the list goes on and on. Listen, girlfriend, it should be called the Gay Old Party but what old nelly likes to have her age pointed out?

ezeflyer:
And you point is?...

Yes, Dover, all the Republicans down to the last one were involved in rigging the elections. All of them are thoroughly evil and beyond any hope of changing for the better.

Naturally, all the Democrats are - what? Non-violent? Above war-mongering? (Not most of those in Congress.) Not likely to be a part of the rubber-stamp Congress? (How many members were/are Democrats?) Willing to stand up to the majority - now the minority? (Not the members of the last or the current Congress. Republicans know how to filibuster - but Democrats?) Above being taken in by the lies and distortions preceding Iraq? (Not a chance.) Outraged by tax-cuts for the wealthy? (How many wealthy progressives refused their tax-cuts?) Need I go on?

I agree that actions speak louder than words. (I've been the victim of gross hypocrisy in my own life, and it nearly cost me my life.) However, if the man has only now come to this new position, why can we not give him time to act on his new beliefs - or not?

Reading some of these comments, I have to say, if I were a Republican, I would surely be hesitant to move over to the Democratic side, considering the cold reception I apparently would receive. Would I be making myself a man without a party?

So go ahead, judge every one of them an incorrigible liar and an irredeemable degenerate - and see how quickly the progressive movement does not grow.

This is rich. Time and again, I have read progressives' criticisms of Bush's insistence when he was governor that murderers (and others) are beyond redemption, and that jailhouse conversions are nothing but ploys to get sympathy. Now some who like to think they are progressives are essentially saying the same thing about Republicans.

Granted, we don't have reason to run into someone's arms, just because he claims to have had some great insight, but it is likewise a risk to shun him without giving him a chance: he could become an ally - and don't you think we could use a lot more of those?

I wouldn't say that Sanders would ever be one, but don't we want 'converts' to the progressive movement? I certainly do. Just where do you think you'll get them, if not from Republican ranks? I would rather have one honest 'reformed' Republican than a dozen Nancy Pelosis. Well, one thing for certain, with a chilly reception such as too many posters here would offer, we needn't worry about being overwhelmed by converts.

I believe that there were honest Republicans who did not realize the depth of the corruption of the people who had taken over their party, (just as many Democrats still do not see the depth of the corruption of the people who have taken over their party, who refuse to see how far right their party's 'leaders' have moved, and so settle for calling them cowards). Further, some may just as frustrated with their 'leadership' as Democrats are with their own - and some of those may want to try to change the party back by working from within.

Yes, there is a big difference between an old-fashioned Republican and a neoconservative - but not all old-fashioned Republicans recognize that any better than their Democratic counterparts.

Into which group does Mayor Sanders fall? I have no idea, but I'll wager that nobody else here does, either. So why can't we just wait and see?

st john--you express my feelings about this exactly....and I think Morford's article is a wonderful recogition of the fact that people really do change--and if their ephiphany comes from a personal contact then so what?--that's all the more reason for GLBT folks to be out and proud so that everyone realizes they know someone who's gay, etc.... My MIL finally reconciled to our lesbian relationship when she saw how loving and committed we are...before that she believed that all gay people were on a direct path to hell. We also recently had a civil union in a small town and many otherwise fairly conservative folks showed up to celebrate with us. This was totally because they suddenly realized that they actually knew a couple of lesbians after all--and (surprise, surprise), they actually liked us and didn't find us threatening or offensive at all!! Wow!

Honestly, I always get choked up when I see people who really do have the courage to overcome their fears and actually change and grow--and among those I include my MIL, my conservative and now loving neighbors and Mayor Sanders...remember those famous words: the moral arc of the universe is long and it bends towards justice."--I think we just passed another little bend in the arc!

[deleted--duplicate comment!)

So much for THAT wedge issue!

I am a little disappointed in all the cynical posts. As someone who has worked as an activist for Gay rights, I can assure you that many Republicans sometimes do support Gay rights. Sometimes it is easier to get a Republican legislator to vote for Gay rights with confidence that his conservative credentials will protect him from those who would be upset with him than a Democrat who is scared of being called "too liberal."
However, if we give up on the idea that societal attitudes will change which ultimately come down to one person at a time changing their minds, then why fight to promote Gay rights at all. We are just a static society where everything that is unjust will always be here, and we still have slavery and Jim Crow laws to boot.

To the cynical posters: Do you think that just because you are on the "correct" side of the political spectrum you are automatically superior to those on the other side? I think not. Your hard-heartedness and your inability to feel sympathy for a fellow human being who has increased his capacity for love places you in company with the right wing ideologues who dehumanize sexual minorities.

Iran is not the only place queer free - none in the US Senate or major league sports.

No queers = No need for the Democratic Party to give a hoot about the Constitutional rights of non-existent people.

Time to squirt some more botox Nancy Pelosi. Looking a little tired honey!

I've always said that the world needs more gay people. I have divided the gay community into two classes. There are the in your face, drag queens and there are the ordinary folk who go about their life without feeling any need to announce their homosexuality.

My experience with gays has shown me that gay communities tend to be cleaner, safer, and more politically active than other communities. Gay people tend to show more love and care, while other communities lock out the world and remain in the safety of their homes rather than contribute to the community.

I have never understood the instinctive reaction toward gays. Gay men and women have made enormous contributions to culture, whether it be through poetry, music, or some other art.

How in the world could it possibly hurt anyone if two gay people decide to make their commitment to each other legal? It doesn't affect me in the least. Let them live and love, just as most others want in this life. And grant then the same legal rights as everyone else. I mean, how can a woman leave 25 million dollars to a dog? I've got nothing against dogs, but I don't think they have any concept of money. They do have a concept of love, but a dog could care less about what it has in its bank account, much less even understand these concepts.

I feel that too many of us think of the "drag queens" or "flaming fags" to stop and recognize the positive contributions of the many homosexuals throughout history.

st john

Here is something that might be of interest to you as good reading.

Walking in the Scared Manner by Mark St.Pierre and Tilda Long Soldier.

also a good read:

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown.