I had intended to blog yesterday on a National Review fundraiser I attended Saturday night in Studio City, but decided to delay my post until after I had attended a gay party in the heart of West Hollywood later in the afternoon. And in contrasting my reception at these two gatherings, one where I was openly gay among conservative, the second where I was openly conservative among gays, I experienced nearly exactly the same thing I had when I attended two such events back to back last fall.
This time, however, I actually had a good discussion of gays and the GOP with one guy at the gay party. I had quite a blast at the NR shindig Saturday. The hostess (a former liberal and fan of the magazine) told me that she had never seen so many straight people at her place at one time. She regularly socializes with gay men. More evidence that conservatives are not so narrow as our critics (and some readers of this blog) claim.
I met a number of writers and editors whose columns (and Corner “chatter) I enjoy and got to talk to Peter Robinson, newly installed as a trustee of Dartmouth and author of the wonderful book, How Reagan Changed My Life (which I bought when I visited the Reagan library with Bruce). Jonah Goldberg was much taller than I imagined and most gregarious. A Lord of the Rings fan like me, he is, alas, not so keen (as I) on The Silmarillion.
Ramesh Ponnuru proved to be an excellent conversationalist, well-read and familiar with the details of legislation in this Congress (and past Congresses). K-Lo (i.e., Kathryn Jean Lopez), witty and smart, informed me that my Athena reads the Corner. And even though he once considered running for Mayor of New York, Rich Lowry looks like he’s still a student at America’s finest state university.
I introduced myself to each by indicating the blog (with which most were familiar). Kate O’Beirne was the only one who raised an eyebrow when I identified myself as gay. And that may have been because I reminded her of an exchange we had at the Cato Institute in the mid-90s (which she did not remember as well as I–if she remembered it all).
In short, I got a warm reception at the event — and not merely from the NR staff, but also from the other conservatives who had gathered to celebrate what Ronald Reagan once described as his favorite magazine. No one seemed bothered that I was gay. And I was not the only gay person there. There were at least two others (and two on my wish list).
And while the reception I got yesterday at the gay shindig was a little warmer than that I get when I identify myself as Republican at such parties, I did meet one person who dismissed my ideas before I could even articulate them. This otherwise very bright young man, repeated the usual litany of leftist attacks on the president (****BUSH LIED*****, he’s corrupt & etc.). He couldn’t believe that a gay person could be conservative. As I took issue with some of his misrepresentations of our man W and attempted to explain how a gay man could be conservative, he said he couldn’t continue the conversation and took his leave. At least he was polite.
Later, another man seemed genuinely eager to learn my thoughts on gays and the GOP. (After that, I had a most amazing conversation with two other guys about myth, psychology and The Lord of the Rings, both the books and the movies, and even recited a few lines of Beowulf in the original.)
Once again, I find a warmer welcome as an openly gay man at a conservative gathering than I do as an openly conservative man at a gay gathering. While many on the gay left put forward the image of conservatives as an intolerant lot, my experience has been quite the contrary. Most conservatives (particularly those of the intellectual sort) seem less interested in my sexuality than in my ideas. And more willing to engage me than many on the gay left who proclaim themselves to be advocates of tolerance.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
ADDENDUM: PrismWarden suggested that I should do an investigative piece where we go to conservative and gay events and gauge reactions. It looks like I’m back to continuing the experiment I had begun just before the election. A few people e-mailed me back then to share their experiences. So, I’ll ask again, please e-mail me to relate stories of your experiences coming out as gay in conservative and Republican circles — and as conservative or Republican is gay circles. And please let me know if I may quote your e-mail on the blog.
Dude! The Silmarillion RULES! One of my top 2-3 alltime favorite books!
The Silmarillion shall stay on my shelf until I can work up the nerve to read another 20 pages or so.
I ate up the LOTR trilogy. Like many, it was as if what I had imagined all those years was suddenly on the screen (extended versions). Of course, if I would’ve directed it, it would have been 20 hours instead of ten. I could have seen more Treebeard and the Ents for example. Hoom.
Alas, Peter Jackson stabbed me with a Morgul blade when he decided; instead of exploding like the Death Star, Barad-dûr should collapse like the World Trade Center.
The wound will never fully heal…
you are an idiot, you say that just because you are gay you don’t have to be liberal. what you are missing is that non liberals, or right wingers hate gays so it is kind of hard to be a right winger (gay hating) if you are gay, unless of course you hate yourself
Dasf, did you even read my post where I note that my experience indicates that conservatives have been more tolerant of me as a gay man than many gay leftists have been of me as a conservative.
Oh . . . and by calling me an idiot, you reinforce the point I just reiterated.
You mean he comes from old Vir-gin-ee-ya, where all is bright and gay (not gay!)?
Haha…exactly what I was thinking when I read dasf’s post. Wow. You couldn’t have asked for a more concrete example to chime in here and illustrate some of that intolerance and unreasonableness.
I’m telling you, it is growing increasingly difficult to parody people. Between dasf and the guy who called Dan a hypocrite in the hypocrite thread, I’m wondering if I should even bother writing anymore. Nothing is more mocking and damning than what comes from their own mouths.
You lucky bugger. I’ve never gotten to meet any of the NRO crew in person, although I’ve exchanged many emails with Jonah (whose quoted me in The Corner, including this item I sent after the CBS News Memos were revealed to be fake), Jay Nordlinger, who is a UM Alum like me and has quoted me in “Impromptus”), Rich Lowry who has always been really nice, and even John Derbyshire has been unfailingly courteous and reliable in responding to email.
Come to think of it, an NRO Get-Together was once the subject of a Caption This Thread (Way back when I was only getting 40 UV’s a day).
Two serious posts here in just a day, and both from GayPatriotWest. Thank you for that. Liked very much the reminder (in the German election piece) of the role of ancillary events to the overall course of history; and the Wiesenthal piece…what a fine tribute to one of the greater men history has known. Too bad neither post is getting the level of attention and discussion they truly deserve, as commenters dally off into other conversations about much of nothing. Good work in both, though, GayPatriotWest. You deserve a much more serious forum than this.
It is totally believable that you would get a better reception at an NR function than your average WeHo dinner party. The tables might be turned, however, if you attended a conservative function dominated by Family Research Council and Touchstone Magazine folks who would view you as a mortal enemy.
I guess my experience has rendered for me rather mixed results. I am not able to say that my reception as a gay man among conservatives has been any more positive than my reception as a conservative man around gays. I am delighted to report that I’ve managed to get into heated arguments in either setting. Perhaps what matters is not what goes on with me in the voting booth or in bed, but something more fundamental. Maybe I’m an asshole.
OT: But this deserves mentioning Somewhere.
Short version: Lefty blogger posts Pat Robertson “Quote” blaming lesbians for Hurricane Katrina. Then, admits there’s no evidence Robertson ever said such a thing.
The lefty obssession with Pat Robertson is weird. The guy has a smaller audience than Al Franken, and even less influence on his party.
I find it hard to believe that ANYONE has a smaller audience than Al Franken! (Well, maybe except for the entire MSNBC network, that is.)
Speaking of small audiences – did anyone catch Mother Sheehan’s latest rant and rave? She is now targeting Hillary Clinton as being “just another politician” and demanding that NY’ers toss her out of the Senate.
Note to Mother Sheehan: Look out, Cindy. All I can do is warn you with two words: Vince Foster.
Regards,
Peter Hughes
Dan,
A very interesting social experiment.
I suggest you replicate it in Alabama.
Chandler, how about if you replicate it in Alabama, since doing so is your idea? (If you’re right, you’ll get a cold shoulder and come home; if Dan is right, no one in Alabama will care that you’re gay and you’ll be welcomed and learn something; either way, it’s a win-win fpr all of us.)
#13 – I assume Vince Foster is a wisecrack – but your point is interesting – if Mother Sheehan is turning on Hillary, look for the MSM to then turn savagely on Mother Sheehan. Which works out good for patriots.
The Robertson/Katrina thing was a spoof made easily believable by all the wacko things Robertson has said over the years.
I find it highly amusing you are so concerned with the reception you receive from the non-conservative gay crowd. Why should the conservative crowd reject you? They are often highly educated and know that gay people aren’t the threat conservative politicians pretend we are to get them elected via high turnouts to ban gay marriage, civil unions, etc. Indeed, your presence at their functions gives them the ability to say, “See, look how tolerant we are? We let the homo share a drink with us.” Of course, this makes it all the more despicable when they then demonize us to whip the less educated into a froth over the threat we pose to decent people.
And the flip side is why on earth should liberal gay folk want to spend time with you? Granted, should we meet in a public place there would be no call to be rude to you. Should I meet you at a party and your views became clear, I would simply feign the sighting of an old friend and leave you. And, of course, I would defend to the death your right to hold your views. But I would never knowingly invite you into my home when you support a party supported by people that not only want to ban gay marriage, but strip us of all legal protections as do so many of the state amendments already passed. (Just like the new push in Massachusetts.) You support the party that makes me fearful to travel in “red” areas for fear of being kept from my partner if he were hurt. You support a party that bans books because they are gay, bans gay people from adopting, slimes candidates with gay rumors to get elected, etc. Of course, you’re going to get the cold shoulder at most gay functions. That is what happens to quislings. But why should you care when the Republican party loves you so much?
Claws out BuddhaKitty! Mon cher.
And with “Quisling”, no less. My guess is that BuddhaKitty is about 10 minutes from being BannedKitty.
Banned for using the word quisling? Surely, GayPatriot is made of sterner stuff than that! And given all the awful things I’ve read about “liberals” on this site banning me for that post would be hypocritical to the extreme! I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how much dissent this forum can tolerate.
I don’t know BuddhaKitty. I watched them whack a lovely one or two recently, so I’m not so sure about the sterner stuff stuff. Alls I can say is I hope your cookie guard’s up.
And I know what you mean about the awful things they say about liberals on this site. I seen a lot of it. But, I’m relatively new and so far untouched by it, Praise Be, with one exception. A very nasty (and obviously young) man with the most interesting moniker, one which fits quite nicely with your “Quisling” theory.
Buddhakitty, your comments merely confirm the point I made in this post. You’re not interested in understanding those with whom you disagree, only calling us names and congratulating yourself for being so clever. But, let me assure you, outside the fever swamps of the far left, few would think you very clever.
Let’s talk about name calling, shall we? In less than sixty seconds scanning the site I came across “Idiot”, “Loony” and “Moonbat” describing all or various liberals. So let’s get off the pity pot that I used the word quisling. Pot meet kettle. Kettle, pot. And I noticed that you addressed nothing in my post except that I used the word quisling. Surely, you can do better than that?
No, No. 22. It’s the other way around. You call US (the libs and mods here) the names. Occasionally we respond with a solo salvo, such as BuddhaKitty’s “Quisling”. But, it’s generally out of frustration with the closed minds we encounter here.
BuddhaKitty, there was nothing substantive in your comment to address.
Let’s see–you claim that the fact that people at the NRO shindig tolerated you is proof that they are not as intolerant as us lefties claim. I then pointed out that their tolerating you and then using the fear of gays and gay rights to get elected is despicable. I’d call that pretty substantive. But you have no comment. Furthermore, I addressed your not particularly substantive whine that most gay people are less tolerant of you than your conservative friends. So I did address what your post was about so if my post isn’t “meaty” enough perhaps you should look to your original post. But I think there was plenty there. What do you think about your conservative friends tolerating you in private then placing initiatives on their ballots designed to draw their homophobic supporters to the polls? I’m really curious how you deal with that cognitive dissonance. BTW, I notice you’ve now skipped away from the name calling issue. I responded to it and now you’ve dropped it. This, I find, is typical of people who find themselves backed into a corner on certain points–just change the subject!
Chandler, how about if you replicate it in Alabama, since doing so is your idea? (If you’re right, you’ll get a cold shoulder and come home; if Dan is right, no one in Alabama will care that you’re gay and you’ll be welcomed and learn something; either way, it’s a win-win fpr all of us.)
Comment by joe
===================
I beg to disagree. In Alabam where gays are hated and reviled, I would think that Dan would get a nice chain and drag from the real red repubs. By the struggling out gay community, they would prolly look at him like a black field slave would see a black house slave. Not a good thing either.
I leave the social science to our own myth-guided moderator.
(I just cracked myself up)
#26 – There is very little substansive in your arguments. In fact, you merely repeat things which could be said of either party. If you have never been to a democratic function where attendees congratulate themselves on how cosmopolitan they are for accepting blacks, gays, etc. in their midst, we must move in different Democratic circles.
Furthermore, you seem unable to differentiate sexual issues from other political matters. That you view an entire party through the prism of sexuality is not a sign of intellectual advancement nor serious thought.
Did it ever occur to you that, for some people, their sexuality is secondary to larger political issues they believe to be more important? Or, hearkening back to my caveman male roots, should I allow my cock and its behaviors to dictate every stream of thought running through my head?
Perhaps some of us believe the war on terror, the economy, the constitutional order of government, the balance between socialism and capitalism and its effects on cultural-familial constructs, etc. just may take a bit of precedence over our present dating situation?
If you supported John Kerry, you also supported a candidate who opposed gay marriage and lobbied to repeal gay protections in his home state in order to appeal to the religious sensibilities of his constituency. Did you, like a proper subservient, nod and smile and tell them “That’s quite all right, as long as we win the election!” Log Cabin Republicans did no such thing. They refused to endorse Bush. They were truthful and honest about their opposition to Republican positions and candidates.
That is far more than people of your ilk have ever offered.
But, please, by all means. Surround yourself with who you will. I can only imagine the tediousness in store for the poor soul who would run across you at a cocktail party. Coping with the arrogance, close-mindedness, and an air of superiority so thick, we’d have to pass another Kyoto treaty to deal with the atmospheric strain.
Please, do stay on your side of town. Mine is far more entertaining.
What do you think about your conservative friends tolerating you in private then placing initiatives on their ballots designed to draw their homophobic supporters to the polls? I’m really curious how you deal with that cognitive dissonance.
Let’s reverse the question, BuddhaKitty. How do you and other gay leftists deal with liberals who tolerate gays in private, but publicly support initiatives meant to pander to homophobes?
You call it being “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, and insist that “you don’t care” about their views.
I particularly liked this ironic statement:
But I would never knowingly invite you into my home when you support a party supported by people that not only want to ban gay marriage, but strip us of all legal protections as do so many of the state amendments already passed. (Just like the new push in Massachusetts.)
Then you must be sleeping outside.
Sen. John Kerry said in an interview published yesterday that he would have voted for the gay-marriage ban passed overwhelmingly this week by Missouri voters. The Democratic presidential nominee, who spent parts of two days stumping across the state, told The Kansas City Star the ballot measure was the same as one his home state of Massachusetts passed a few years ago. Kerry supported that measure
When you can say such acts are “despicable” in these examples as well, we may have something to discuss. However, until then, you remain a classic example of one using stereotyping and immature logic to explain why s/he alternately praises and lashes the same behavior depending on the political party affiliation of the one performing it.
#17
slimes candidates with gay rumors to get elected,
You mean like Sen. Max Baucus(D,MT)?
Chandler, No. 27, “myth-guided moderator”. Funniest thing said on this site in my brief tenure here. And I’m sure even the mods must have enjoyed it. You’re marvelous and should write more often. Why don’t you?
Robbie, No. 28, you’re a passionate writer (and seem to organize your thoughts well), but you allow that passion to lead you to launch personal attacks on other commenters — which, in turns, tends to undercut your argument.
And, No. 29, who’s actually Thirty, why not answer the question of cognitive dissonance raised by BuddhaKitty? That might be interesting; whereas reversing the question to dodge the question is not. I have a feeling you can do better than that, and that you might shine some light on the old sleeping-with-the enemy debate.
#29 Let’s reverse the question, BuddhaKitty. How do you and other gay leftists deal with liberals who tolerate gays in private, but publicly support initiatives meant to pander to homophobes?
More than happy to answer the question ND30, but you have to do the same. How do I deal with it Dem politicans don’t always take the pro-gay stand I might like? I’m grateful they don’t fall into the traps laid for them by homophobic conservatives, that’s how. And I look at the entirety of their record. As I said before, I’m a grown-up and I understand that this is politics. I would take Kerry being against gay marriage over Bush any day of the week. I understand who is putting discriminatory ballot amendments on state ballots. I understand who is trying to pass legislation that will hurt my interests–and it ain’t Democrats (usually). I look at the totality of the party, and, yes, sometimes Dems in conservative states and areas can’t/won’t be as pro-gay as I would like. But I know they are going to support Harry Reid for Senate President instead of Bill “stem cell” Frist and Nancy Pelosi instead of Tom “Am I indicted yet” DeLay. It’s not really hard at all because I know where the Dems want to lead us on gay issues. Ditto the Republicans. So I don’t view the Democratic acts as “despicable” because I understand teh Dems only reacting to the political situation created by conservatives. So I’ve answered the question. Your turn. How do you reconcile belonging to a party that is on record again and again as being against your rights?
#28 Robbie “There is very little substansive in your arguments. In fact, you merely repeat things which could be said of either party. If you have never been to a democratic function where attendees congratulate themselves on how cosmopolitan they are for accepting blacks, gays, etc. in their midst, we must move in different Democratic circles.”
Hmm, well, I guess we do move in different circles, although I certainly won’t claim Dems are perfect. But I’d rather hang with the Dems you describe than Repubs who are going to gay bash me to get elected.
Robbie: Did it ever occur to you that, for some people, their sexuality is secondary to larger political issues they believe to be more important? Or, hearkening back to my caveman male roots, should I allow my cock and its behaviors to dictate every stream of thought running through my head? Furthermore, you seem unable to differentiate sexual issues from other political matters. That you view an entire party through the prism of sexuality is not a sign of intellectual advancement nor serious thought.”
Perhaps some of us believe the war on terror, the economy, the constitutional order of government, the balance between socialism and capitalism and its effects on cultural-familial constructs, etc. just may take a bit of precedence over our present dating situation?”
Caveman roots, huh? I guess that means you believe in evolution, huh? BTW, when did I ever say my sexuality trumps all other issues? If you think you’re psychic then you’re sadly mistaken. I would say the environment trumps all other issues, but this thread was about liberal gays being less tolerant than straight conservatives. I’m just as concerned about education, social justice, racism, corporate power, and, well, the list goes on. Be careful of those assumptions, Robbie! FYI, And if you think the debate is about our “”dating situation” you are sadly misguided. That sounds like the sort of homophobic thing a conservative would say to diminish the idea that we are as much human as anyone else and want to get married, settle down, take care of each other, even have kids–hardly just my “dating situation”. As for the LCR, please don’t make me laugh! All I can say is that if you touch the hot stove enough times you finally learned that what you get is burnt fingers.
The rest of your post is just insults not needing a response, but suffice it to say I like my side of town just fine.
So I don’t view the Democratic acts as “despicable” because I understand teh Dems only reacting to the political situation created by conservatives.
In other words, the devil made me do it. I’m not responsible for my own actions, and I’m not capable of taking a stand.
I throw the bullshit flag.
You like to argue that Democrats are “leaders” that represent the “mainstream”. If that’s the case, why do they so slavishly follow the radical fringes?
I particularly loved this one:
But I know they are going to support Harry Reid for Senate President instead of Bill “stem cell” Frist and Nancy Pelosi instead of Tom “Am I indicted yet” DeLay..
First off, there is no such thing as a Senate President. Second off, both Reid and Pelosi oppose full equality for gays, including gay marriage; Reid in particular because it is against his religion.
You’re not against homophobes; you’re just against homophobes who don’t pander and lie to you.
Finally, to answer the question, BuddhaKitty; I tend to vote Republican because I am in agreement with them on far more issues than I am with Democrats. Relative to the gay issues, I call a spade a spade.
I tend to take people at their word; when Democrats say they support gay equality and then promote banning gay marriage and stripping gays of rights, I call it lying. However, because of exposure, I have learned that, in the gay world, it is quite often a psychological impossibility for gays to recognize or even admit the antigay actions of Democrats and to rationalize such as “pro-gay”, “gay-supportive”, or “looking at the totality”. When this is challenged, they tend to lash out and label others as exhibiting “cognitive dissonance” in an attempt to browbeat them into conformity with their warped ideal.
Obviously, I meant Leader of the Senate, not president.
As for Pelosi and Reid, she gets a 100% from the HRC, he gets a 63% something exceeded by only two Republicans. I learned a long time ago that hardly anybody agrees 100% of the time with what I believe and that part of being a grown-up is compromise. You can pretend all you want that Kerry, Pelosi, et al are lying to get our vote and are actually homphobes. Common sense clearly tells me otherwise. Again, I know who is sponsoring the amendments to ban same sex marriage. I know who is pushing right wing judges and who gets their support from Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson’s crowd. So here is your bullshit flag back. You’ve earned it. As for lashing out I’ve read enough posts here to see who does most of the lashing.
Dan,
Nice to know there’s another gay, conservative, Silmarillion-loving Wahoo in the world. I felt so alone.
I’ve had fairly similar experiences with my non-gay conservative friends and non-conservative gay friends, even down here in the Bible Belt South. A lot of conservative types are very happy to find out that the “gay gene” is not necessarily attached to the “leftist gene.” We would have a lot more friends and a lot more opportunities if we didn’t address those people (including religious conservatives) with such hatred.
I can understand that a large proportion of gays have been seriously injured by religious and conservative attitudes, so it will be hard to get beyond the vitriol. But we need to. It doesn’t do us any good to make people think that being gay also means loving high taxes, big government, weak national defense, abortion on demand, and a host of other policies and opinions that have nothing to do with being gay. The fact that there are beginning to be “gay patriots” out there suggests to me that the gay community is growing up.
Charlie
I learned a long time ago that hardly anybody agrees 100% of the time with what I believe and that part of being a grown-up is compromise.
Apparently your definition of compromise is to hate Republicans and to support Democrats, regardless of what they actually do. Here’s an excellent example.
You can pretend all you want that Kerry, Pelosi, et al are lying to get our vote and are actually homphobes. Common sense clearly tells me otherwise. Again, I know who is sponsoring the amendments to ban same sex marriage.
Oh really?
Sen. John Kerry said in an interview published yesterday that he would have voted for the gay-marriage ban passed overwhelmingly this week by Missouri voters. The Democratic presidential nominee, who spent parts of two days stumping across the state, told The Kansas City Star the ballot measure was the same as one his home state of Massachusetts passed a few years ago. Kerry supported that measure.
And yet, you still make these statements:
They knew that should Kerry come out for gay marriage–which he in all likelihood supports–Bush, et all would have bludgeoned him with it until the cows came home.
So, in short, you say that the man supports gay marriage, even though he has spoken out against it publicly and supported state laws and amendments to ban it for years.
THAT, my children, is the finest example of delusion in action.