Schwarzenegger's stand on gay rights puts him in middle of road [Mapplethorpe pic 4sale on ebay]

Of all the issues that separate Arnold Schwarzenegger from his conservative rival, Sen. Tom McClintock, few are as stark as the actor-turned-candidate's tolerant attitude toward gay rights.

Schwarzenegger, who describes himself as socially moderate, says on his campaign Web site that he thinks "gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against."

McClintock, on the other hand, doesn't support giving gay couples the same rights enjoyed by married couples.

But as he embarks on his first campaign swing through San Francisco on Tuesday, the former bodybuilder whose big screen debut in "Pumping Iron" drew appreciative audiences to the Castro Theatre remains an enigma to gay activists unsure how -or if - Gov. Arnold would advance their cause.

"Honestly, I don't even hear people talking about him, and I've been listening," said Thom Lynch, who, as executive director of the San Francisco Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center, has played host to a steady stream of Democratic presidential candidates in recent months. "He's sort of like Charlton Heston. Nobody really connects to him."

Since Schwarzenegger first espoused his support for domestic partnerships on a conservative radio show last month, Equality California, a statewide gay advocacy group, has pressured the Republican frontrunner's campaign for specifics.

Yet the Schwarzenegger camp asked for more time to complete and then never returned the group's pre-endorsement questionnaire, according to program director Toni Broaddus. The questionnaire asked candidates whether they would have signed several bills endorsed by Gov. Gray Davis that granted registered domestic partners most of the same legal and economic rights as married spouses.

Members of California Legislature's LGBT Caucus also have tried to flesh out the details of Schwarzenegger's platform, first by sending him a public letter asking him to clarify his stands then handing out fliers demanding the same outside last month's state Republican convention in Los Angeles.

"He thinks he dealt with the issue because he said he supports domestic partners. Well, great, that is the law of the land," said Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco. "He gets this free ride as being gay-friendly, but he doesn't have to take a stand at the risk of offending his right-wing base."

At the same time, Schwarzenegger's few words on the subject have been more than enough for some activists. Two ultraconservative groups, the Orange County-based Traditional Values Coalition and the Campaign for California Families, have condemned him for not issuing a strong enough denouncement of gay marriage, which Schwarzenegger, Davis and the leading Democratic candidate, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, all oppose.

Last week, the Log Cabin Republicans of California, a political club that represents gay and lesbian GOP voters, endorsed Schwarzenegger. President Jeff Bissiri said the group knew everything it needed to know about the candidate once Schwarzenegger stated his support for domestic partnerships and allowing gay parents to adopt.

"From our perspective, he has done what we wanted him to do and he did it without us asking," Bissiri said. "Those of us who hold conservative views on fiscal issues no longer have to make that Hobson's choice of someone who is good on gay and lesbian issues, but not good on these other issues."

Nevertheless, as an actor who posed naked for a gay magazine during his muscle-bound prime and still works in the gay-friendly movie industry, Schwarzenegger hasn't gotten so easy a pass from everyone.

Jack Fritscher, a writer of gay erotic fiction and chronicler of San Francisco gay history, recently posted for sale on eBay nine items from his personal "Schwarzenegger Shrine." With an asking price of $24,000, they include a postcard of Schwarzenegger's torso taken by the late Robert Mapplethorpe that the controversial gay photographer used to invite friends to a 1979 "Hot Dirty Man" party and the February 1977 issue of After Dark magazine that featured a cover spread on Schwarzenegger.

Fritscher said he was trying to make a point, albeit provocatively, creating a sort of political performance piece that would "bring up a question for Arnold: You were photographed by Mapplethorpe, so what is your position on homosexuals? What is your position on California government funding of the arts?

"It was not to embarrass Arnold at all, just to connect the dots so the conversation can occur," said Fritscher, who lives in Sebastopol, Calif. "You can remind him of who helped make him. Mapplethorpe helped make him. All the gay people who were into bodybuilding. Who rents `Conan the Barbarian?'"

"Davis ramps up the sleaze machine. "

BINGO! That was my first thought as well.

And seems like some FReepers are happy to oblige him spreading said sleeze.

In the meantime, here is what Ray Haynes said:

"So the question is--Can conservatives credibly support Schwarzenegger? I think so. I put the following evidence to you for your consideration.

(1) He is not afraid to call himself a conservative. Many of my moderate friends refuse to even use the word, because they think it damages them. Schwarzenegger used it at the convention, and used it proudly. That is a good thing.

(2) Anyone who says that "Milton Friedman is right, and Karl Marx is wrong" has the makings of a good conservative, even if he doesn't understand all of the nuances of the political debate. When you begin with the right base, the rest is simply good education. I know, because that is how I began my journey from the left to my current state of conservatism. I started with the right base, and built on it like building on a rock.

(3) On the social issues on which we can have an effect, Schwarzenegger is with us. He is for parental notification in abortion, and against partial birth abortion. In the abortion debate in California, that is all we can affect at this time, without a major change in the law, the legislature, and public opinion. He is with us. He is against gay marriage. Domestic partnerships are already in law, and we can't change it until we change the legislature. By that time, we will have the chance to work on him, and show him the wisdom of our position. The same with guns. There is nothing he would do to make things worse than they already are, and nothing he could do to make things any better in our current environment. His base is correct, that is something to build on. (

4) On education, he thinks Milton Friedman is right--that being so--he will come to see the wisdom of parental choice.

(5) On fiscal and business issues, we have a clear and outspoken friend. Despite what you’ve read in the papers, he has been quite clear in what he would do to turn the business climate around and he has pledged to end the car tax (See www.joinarnold.com for more specifics.)

Comparing all of this with Davis and Bustamante, the question of who to support answers itself. At worst, Schwarzenegger will be benign on the issues we hold dear, and at best, he will be helpful. I think there is sufficient evidence that he will be helpful that I am willing to put my personal reputation on the line in his support. If I am wrong, I will apologize, and do my political penance. I do not think I am wrong here."

He also says:

"But, if Cruz wins because Tom split the vote, the cost to the conservative movement in California will be immeasurable. We started the recall, we need to finish it with a victory. If we lose now, and there is a better than average chance we will if things stay the same, we will rightly bear the criticism that we handed this state over to the Democrats for the next 7 years. Our shortsightedness could cost us the entire war in this state. That is a risk I will not take. I have worked too hard, fought too much for the things we believe in to sacrifice them for my political career, for someone else's ego, or for the shortsightedness of those who are my allies. If I believe we are doing wrong, I am going to do what is right first, and let the politics fall as they may. If that means I must bear the criticism of my friends, then so be it. I know if Cruz wins, conservatism is California will be discredited for a long time."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/991842/posts

Arnold wasn't involved in the bullwhip photos by Mapplethorpe,

I know and I did not say he was. Reread my post-it was describing maplethorp.

and neither had anything to do with "Piss Christ," which was done by Serrano.

Thats nice to know, but as I did not mention that.

I can't really tell what exactly it is you're trying to say,

I know the feeling.

but it appears that you're blaming Arnold for the peccadillos of the man who photographed him, as if somehow Mapplethorpe's sins are visited on Arnold by simply having his photo taken by Mapplethorpe?

I dont blame him for someone elses "peccadillos", I just think its funny how "SOME" arnold supporters will go to any clintonian length to defend him (for example mapplethorpe/sistine chaple comparisons). I think posing for a sicko is one of many bad choices he made earlier in life, just like someone else writing a letter to the ROTC or not Inhailing.

If so, you're talking nonsense.

Since you were incorrect about what I wrote, I'm not sure you are the best judge of what point what I wrote conveys.

If you mean you don't approve of Arnold having his photo taken nude, period,

Not at all-I liked the one with the girl on his shoulders.

why bring bullwhips and "Piss Christ" into the rant, they're irrelevant.

Bullwhips to remind others of who the mapplethorp sicko was...and once again no mention here of the other example.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.