#34: For crying out loud, Stephen. Start your own blog. I quit reading after 3 paragraphs.

Fortunately, the NGLTF and Lambda remain respectable associations, still tending to the Left, but within the general scheme of social liberalism, rather than a particular political ideology. I wish all the groups could be less strident and vitriolic and more educational and promotional. The “shouting at each other” tactics obviously have not, nor will not, work. We need to work together over issues that concern us as citizens and participants equally.

But, as we saw with GWB, one doesn’t need to appear extremist to be one. What could be more American than promoting marriage in a narrow, conservative manner, unless that’s just a screed to send chills up people’s spines about gays qua gays, much worse gay marriage? GWB has an uncanny ability to spin his malfeasance to look innocent enough, but anyone with a view to Rove’s tactics understands what’s really going on. The “hate and divide” has worked with too many people, and one of the biggest losers has been GLBTs.

Incompetent leadership at all levels and on all fronts is destroying all of us, first as a nation, and second as people who find love in our own gender. All sides of the hue and cry bear responsibility for its incivility. And the intensity of division and discontent in this country has never been more fervent since Vietnam. Rather than trying to find “common ground,” extremists on the Right and the Left have found no shared interests.

All our leaders have special interests in mind, not the common good. And as long as the conversation always returns to “rights” over “virtue,” we will largely be speaking past each other. That’s why I admire writers like Dale Carpenter, Jonathan Rauch, Andrew Sullivan, and others. As true conservatives in the Burkean, Oakshott, and Hayekean sense, they’ve consistently provided intelligent, coherent, and honest discussion of issues that concern us both as citizens and as a minority within that citizenry.

I suppose there will always be the need for PACs to serve special interests, but I think the GLBT “rights” movement must now get out of the street and into the lecture halls, the civic conventions, the classroom, savy and respectable journals, addressing not only rights, but also finding expression of our vision for the common good. I’m convinced that once the banter is set aside, many, if not most, of our objectives and goals are too similar to fight each other, but to fight against the anti-democratic, anti-republican forces on the Right and the Left.

The irony of ironies, however, is that most GLBTers use a libertarian, anarchist approach when it comes to their rights (e.g., just leave me alone), but very few try to show or explain how GLBTs contribute to the overall common good. In the GLBT’s defense, it’s hard to be equipoised when one’s opponents use visceral and repugnant language and tactics — it’s challenging to be civil when the opponent preys upons fears and prejudices, and especially when “they” attack a very core of one’s being.

Stephen Miller has repeatedly suggested that GLBT tone down it tenor and “reason” with the religious wingnuts and social rednecks. Sorry, while the idea appeals, the practice fails. I’ve seen bloviators like Fox’s O’Reilly destroy GLBT people by a variety of deplorable tactics. How can one reason with such people? Mel White tried to reason with Jerry Falwell, but the latter was too self-righteous to get anywhere. Pat Robertson, Lou Sheldon, James Dobson, et alia, who have large followings, are simply vile individuals, with whom “communion” is impossible! Good luck and good bye.

I dislike the militancy and stridancy found on both sides. Indeed, if we understand that ALL our advances have come about through our own individual stories having been told to others (usually by “coming out”) and that the justice we GLBT seek is simple equality, not special rights, the converts to our causes will continue to be legion. It helps immensely when a film about gay love sweeps the nation; it’s an opportunity to explore issues that the film raises, and negate the prejudices that many fanatics want to superimpose.

America, especially since the ’60s has been preoccupied with “rights.” These interests have been important, and remain so. Yet equally needed are the concepts of fairness, equality, the good life, a common good, solidarity, self-control, empathy, while granting that different people will take different routes to get there. Unfortunately, for many people, if it’s not in the Bible, a great many people won’t even try to go there. Such fundamentalism is no different qualitatively from Islamicists. I prefer to identify them as “fanatics” rather than fundamentalists. And GLBT is right to insist that no one has the right to impose one’s own fanaticism on others, otherwise s/he’s no different than al-Quaeda. Frankly, I don’t see much difference between the Southern Baptist Convention and al-Quaeda, save perhaps the extremist means.

Fanaticism, no less than doctrinaire Marxism, as with Islamic fundamentalism are all inimical to democratic self-government and a republican society of plural interests, where each individual is free to determine for himself the good life, but does so with respect for others and without harm to others. It’s the ideal of the Founders, and as far as I can tell, it is wholly compatible with the ideals of the GLBTers of today. As repeatedly shown, it is the fanatics, usually religious, that have subverted the American ideal time after time. They, not GLBTs, are the real problem.

Thus, as a part of the national dialogue, it is essential for GLBT to identify with the Founder’s ideals, and to marginalize all those would undermine that ideal. But we must go beyond the obstacle, and help Americans to imagine what a truly liberal society might look like. Holland, Spain, Belgium, and to some extent Canada are all helping us get there. Wherever GLBT inclusion has succeeded, fanaticism had to be defeated. Still more, GLBT had to demonstrate that civic virtues, the common good, and the pursuit of happiness beckon all people of all stripes.

So, just as GWB has failed, so too has HRC. Both have special interests in their sights, not the common good. It’s now time to plan for the next elections and those following; to reinvigorate many of our associations to find common ground rather than persue each one’s special interests. It can be done. Indeed, it must be done. Empathy must supplant ressentment, dialogue replace militancy, reason overcome religious zealotry, and the extremists marginalized for their division rather than for their shared vision. Almost everything that could go wrong, has. Doing it the “old” Sixties’ way no longer works. But in order for GLBT to be heard, we must first learn to hear, too. Tagging one a “liberal” in order to dismiss “them” is evidence one hasn’t heard.

Ah, that explains why gay groups call Democrats who want to strip gays of rights by state constitutional amendment “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, while calling people like Schwarzenegger who OPPOSE such amendments “antigay”.

It’s all about party, folks.

Then compare that to this:

However, as unfortunate as it is, the Democrats have to pretend to be more socially conservative, otherwise they will never again carry another southern state in a presidential election.

Pot, meet kettle.

Oh, and by the way, Brock, they’re not pretending. That’s a fiction that gay leftists dreamed up to explain why the people to whom they give millions of dollars clearly and consistently vote against them. They’ve just realized that liberal gays are such suckers that they’ll rationalize anything for a few cheap words of feigned acceptance.

It’s wrong to say as you do, in #31, that most of the GOP establishment doesn’t like them. Many would be willing to work with them if they could demonstrate a commitment to the GOP.

That could do that by coming out strongly for some items on the GOP agenda, as they did briefly last year with Social Security reform — and by daring to criticize Democrats. Their (Log Cabin’s, that is) leadership seems to prefer the company (and good opinion) of gay activists to that of Republicans. And that’s one reason why they fail.

Yet sadly, a pro-gay Republican is like water in the Sahara. It’s there. It’s just hard to find. At the same time, even one anti-gay Democrat in my party is too many for me. But how do you vote if you are a gay Democrat in Virginia? Their choice for Governor was a religious conservative and a conservative democrat. It wasn’t much of a choice.

Still, Warner was able to ban anti-gay discrimination in state employment in his final days through an executive order, probably something Kilgore, the Repulican candidate, would have recinded had he been the Governor-elect instead of Tim Kaine. In a state like Virginia, unfortunately, that’s the best you can do.

Our nation is one of the few on the planet, particularly among western idustrialized nations, were religious fundamentalism flourishes. As such, the sort of social change that would make the lives of homosexuals easier, is going to be very hard to implement.

I welcome gay Republican efforts to change the face of the GOP. But it must be said, as of now, you’re not doing a very good job. Rather than enacting change, the Republican leadership has become even more socially conservative and even more allied with the religious right. Rather than criticizing Democrats, why don’t you work on that?

Maybe that’s because the Kaine campaign didn’t pay him.

And as for Andy….isn’t it funny how Democrats who support stripping gays of rights are “weak on the issue”, but Republicans who do so are horrible homophobic bigots who don’t deserve to hold office?

Now go on. Tell us again how Kaine is “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” — you did it for John Kerry’s identical positions last year.

And yes raj, the CA legislature indeed was “grandstanding” with the gay marriage bill (knowing it would be struck down and had to be; doing it purely for the headlines and Angry Gay Left money donations), as I described.