One of the reasons I am eager to see Patrick Guerriero leave Log Cabin is that while he professes to be of the party of Ronald Reagan, even dispensing a Ronald Reagan Award to a number of (largely worthy) Republican politicians, he, by and large, avoided the Gipper’s rhetoric and ideas, preferring the rhetoric of the gay left. Three months ago, I wrote how in “eagerness to be accepted by national gay groups,” Log Cabin uses the same watchword as the gay left, “equality,” over and over (and over) again.
The realization of equality, however, “has been anathema to conservatives and libertarians for generations.” Understanding the natural tension between realizing equality and preserving our freedom, since the founding of our party in the 1850s, Republicans have preferred freedom, liberty, the ability to live our lives as we choose with government interference only to protect our lives, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness.
So focused has Log Cabin been on this watchword of the gay left, that it has even spun the Governor’s speech to reflect that agenda, headlining its release Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Makes Strong Case for Equality at Log Cabin Republicans Dinner in Los Angeles. Now, I’ve read a great deal of coverage of the speech and have even contacted the Governor’s campaign (and Log Cabin) to get a text of his remarks, which they do not (alas) have (though the woman from the campaign (who took my call) was immensely polite, promising to get a transcript to me if one is made).
And while the media coverage suggests that the Governor made a great speech, expressing his love for Log Cabin and his appeal for tolerance of gay people, I could find only one reference to equality in his speech. When he acknowledged disagreements “with activists on critical issues,” the Golden State’s good Governor did pledge to “respect them and foster a spirit of ‘respect, equality and inclusion’ in California.” Hardly a strong case of equality.
The Governor, however, did make a strong case for tolerance. “While we may not agree on every issue,” this good man said, “we are united in the values of love, understanding and tolerance.” He emphasized this point in the speech: “we need a higher level of understanding, not a lower one. And we need an understanding of tolerance that is stronger, not weaker.”
Despite these strong statements, Log Cabin’s release chose not to give its release on the event a more accurate title, like, say, “Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Makes Strong Case for Tolerance at Log Cabin Republicans Dinner” perhaps because some gay leaders frown on that notion. After the speech Geoff Kors, executive director of the left-wing Equality California, pooh-poohed the Governor’s speech, saying “Our community doesn’t want to be tolerated. We want to be equal.”
Given the anti-Republican nature of Geoff’s group, he clearly does not speak for me. So, when he references the community that does not want to be tolerated, he must then be referring to other left-wing gay activists like himself. And I will do what I can to give him what he wants. I will do my best not to tolerate gay left-wing activists.
Neither should Log Cabin. Instead, Log Cabin’s outgoing president Patrick Guerriero acts as if his primary audience is not gay Republicans or even gay moderates (particularly, given the conext of the following remarks, those considering voting to re-elect the outstanding Governor of the nation’s largest state). In an interview with The Advocate, Patrick seemed almost defensive of his dinner with Arnold:
It’s likely this man is going to be reelected and have a heavy impact on the future of equality for LGBT citizens. . . In light of that, LGBT Californians must continue their dialogue with the governor.
When it appeared likely that George W. Bush would be re-elected (in September 2004), Patrick’s group refused to endorse that Republican. I guess that he’s just not interested in a dialogue with President Bush.
Perhaps in his interview, Patrick offered stronger words in defense of the Governor. Perhaps he focused on the pro-gay bills Schwarzenegger signed, Or perhaps he told The Advocate of all the others good things this man has done since taking the helm of a nearly bankrupt state nearly three years ago. Perhaps he said that of the two-major party candidates, Arnold Schwarzenegger was by far (way far) the better. Perhaps he said all these things, but the Advocate reported chose this one quote.
That said, after being at the helm of an organization in the media spotlight for over three years (and a lengthy career in elective office before that), Guerriero should know better than to offer mealy-mouthed lines like that, that the only reason people should support the man is because he’s likely to be reelected. Especially when his argument undermines the rationale behind Log Cabin’s most controversial action during his tenure.
The leader of Log Cabin needs to be aggressive in defending Republicans, particularly those good men like Arnold Schwarzenegger (and women like Connecticut’s Jodi Rell) who have risked alienating social conservatives in our party by promoting tolerance of gay people–and signing legislation to that effect. They need to show — to the GOP as well as the gay community — that gay Republicans are concerned with a great variety of issues, not limited to those which affect us because of our sexual orientation.
It is this failure to articulate Republican principles which has put this blog so often at odds with Log Cabin and its national leadership. Perhaps, the transcript of the Governor’s speech (if it becomes available) will reveal that he made more references to equality than those I could find. But, after reading numerous articles (and blog posts) on the speech, I could only find one time when the Governor used the word “equality,” yet easily discovered a number of references to understanding and tolerance.
It seems that Log Cabin picked up on the Governor’s one use of the word, “equality” because that has become a watchword for that ostensibly Republican group — as it has for the gay left. Instead of focusing on rhetoric which appeals to those on the left side of the political spectrum, Log Cabin needs to use words which appeal to conservatives.
That they picked out the word “equality” and eschewed “tolerance” shows an organization closer to the leaders of the gay left and their socialist forebears than to those of the GOP and our forebears in freedom whose great achievement we celebrate tomorrow.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
You seem to be making a false assumption here.
When “the gay left” and even Patrick Guerriero speak of “equality”, they mean equality of treatment, equality of opportunity, and equality in the eyes of the law.
You promptly confuse this with “equality of results”, which is what conservatives usually mean when they talk about equality is disparaging terms. But the two concepts are not the same thing.
Government ensuring that gay citizens are ensured equal opportunity and equal access to government institutions and services does nothing at all to restrict anyone’s freedom. Unless you are attempting to make that case that screaming “Die, faggot!” while you are beating someone over the head with a bat is a freedom worth defending.
And considering that you conservatives have been squawking that the mean old Supreme Court won’t let you poke your noses into other people’s bedrooms, I am not sure that you are the best choice as a champion of “liberty”.
you know one of LCR goals is to promote the GOP in the gay community….doesn’t make sense to use their language when talking to them?
Don’t assume what I mean, anonymous. It’s a question of rhetoric. Conservatives today talk about freedom and understand the tension between freedom and equality. It’s how we set out goals.
And if you read my post, you would understand that government does serve to protect our lives, so that would not give some creep the freedom to beat me (or any other gay person).
You do make so many assumptions, no wonder you have to hide behind your anonymity. The “you conservatives” you reference is your final paragraph certainly doesn’t include me — and likely doesn’t include most (if not all) Reagan Republicans as most of us are live-and-let-live conservatives who don’t want the government poking its nose into our bedrooms.
Actually, anon, LCR should use the language of the GOP so it can communicate what the Republican Party stands for. And I’m sure many gay people, particularly those disenchanted with the gay leadership, would warm to a freedom agenda.
“And I’m sure many gay people, particularly those disenchanted with the gay leadership, would warm to a freedom agenda.”
Are you referring to freedom like the President’s call to pass FMA to codify into the constituion discrimination against same sex couples? Or how about GOP platforms, like that of the GOP of Texas that has, in writing, its desire to tear apart families and deny equal rights to gays and lesbians? Doesn’t sound like an agenda of freedom to me. And here is the Texas GOP stance, copied right from their platform:
Homosexuality – The Party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
there’s more of these ideas of “freedom”. check out the rest of it: http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServer/RPTPlatform2004.pdf?docID=121
I’ve seen a lot of talk on this board about how democrats are hypocrites, democrats take your money, but lie to you, etc. The truth is though, it has been overwhelming Republicans, not democrats, who have sponsored and passed laws, sponsored referendums, etc which have the sole purpose of denying equal rights to us.
Sorry, but when you want people to warm to a freedom agenda, you’re talking about an agenda that is being offered only to those who will strictly adhere to the terms of the party pushing that agenda, not freedom for all and that, in a simple word, is fascism.
“I will do not my best not to tolerate gay left-wing activists.”
Freudian slip, Dan?
What rhetorical gobbledegook.
And I wish GPW would purge forever from his responses the words, “if you read my post.” We do read your posts, dear. They just don’t make a lot of sense half the time. Reminds me very much of Andy Sully, who, when confronted with his own statements, “clarifies” them by saying something different while maintaining that the reader misunderstood him.
The post is full of so many illogical leaps — like the conflation of endorsement and dialog — that it’s not worth responding to in depth.
Um, Kevin, what does your comment #4 have to do with my post? Seems you just need to rant against gay Republicans without addressing our arguments.
EssEm, thanks for alerting me to that typo. OOPS! :-[
Donny, yeah, I do use the expression “if you read my post a lot” given that Anonymous made an assumption which was directly contradicted by the words of my post. I didn’t do any clarifying, just pointed him to the actual words of the post.
From a recent LCR newsletter:
California’s first lady, a lifelong Democrat, often forgoes appearances at partisan fund-raisers. “She goes to very few of these events,” Schwarzenegger said, “but when I told her it was the Log Cabin Republicans, she said, ‘I love those Republicans–I’m coming.'”
(emphasis mine)
Things that make you go “hmm…”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” GPW – I get your point about the use of rhetoric and how the left/right divide has split into an emphasis on equality (of results) versus liberty… however, the issue at hand for gays and lesbians today seems in fact to be that our essential human equality as acknowledged above is not being acknowledged under America’s laws or by the government to which we pay taxes and which many of us risk our lives to serve. Since the Lawrence decision, our battle has not been for liberty, really – we are not being imprisoned today, nor are we silenced. True, there are ways in which our freedom is not absolute, but I contend that these are secondary concerns. What we are fighting for is something more fundamental. The founders knew that you had to establish the essential equality of every human being before you could move on to what rights that equality bestows. We’re working on that definition today. In a way, until gays and lesbians win that battle, the debate between liberty and equality (really entitlement) isn’t really even relevant. While there may be a desire to avoid the term “equality” because of some connotations it brings up, to do so would be to avoid the real issue at hand, and only confuse matters in some kind of Orwellian twisting of words. The founders articulated this equality – why should we not reclaim it?
#4 and others who may be interested. As a long time dallas LCR member and Republican precinct chair I can tell you with great certainty that the Texas GOP Platform is a fantasy ignored by mainstream Republicans and the vast majority of Republican elected officials. The standard response by most elected officials to questions regarding it is “I haven’t had a chance to read it so I can’t comment”. This response is so widespread that the extremist faction that writes it has made all out attempts at the last three State Conventions to require all Republicans running for office to sign a copy and initial each page. Each attempt was defeated by a united front of elected officials who want nothing to do with the document.
Because of how delegates and comittee members are chosen in Texas, the extreme social conservatives control the State Party. This allows them to write the platform. The results are often comically out of touch. It’s like if the Democrat Platform was written by DU and Code Pink members.
Anyway, I would be surprised to see any Republican who aspires to anything more that County Comissioner or State Rep actually endorse this joke. So when you cite it it has about the same relevance as quoting a DU post and and using it to condem the Democrat Party.
#10: right on BoBo. I had a feeling that the wacky GOP platform in Texas is just being ignored. Pardon my ignorance, but what the hell do the initials “DU” stand for?
I’ve seen a lot of talk on this board about how democrats are hypocrites, democrats take your money, but lie to you, etc. The truth is though, it has been overwhelming Republicans, not democrats, who have sponsored and passed laws, sponsored referendums, etc which have the sole purpose of denying equal rights to us.
Excuses, excuses.
Call us back when you decide to denounce as homophobic, hateful, and bigotted those Democrats I just mentioned — or at least when you intend to stop giving them tens of millions of dollars and unqualified endorsements.
Casey, you make a fair point about the founders in #9, but not the founders talked about being “created equal” and equal rights, not the abstraction of equality. There is a distinction between the two.
My point here (as many times before) is that Log Cabin should avoid the term because conservative groups do — and this ostensibly Republican groups needs to distinguish itself philosophically from the gay groups who endlessly repeat the term. Its leaders seem to be using the term to show that they are just like those groups. To me, it’s a sign that they don’t understand the distinction between the libertarian tradition of mainstream conservatism in America and the ideology of the gay groups.
And Donny in #6, it seems “rhetorical gobbledegook” simply means ideas which contradict your narrow world view.
GPW–
The only question of rhetoric here is your deceptive use of it. Again, you are engaged in a false equation here, asserting that what “the gay left” means when it says “equality” is the same thing that YOU mean when you use that term. It is not the same.
There is no tension between liberty and the equality Patrick Guerriero was talking about. None whatsoever. Patrick was talking about equality of opportunity and equality of access. You are talking about a “socialist” (a little watchword of your own there, yes?) equality of results. Patrick is talking about government treating people equally, while you falsely confuse that with the notion that people should be guaranteed equal lots in life. It is a dishonest rhetoric.
There is nothing “socialist” about equality of opportunity. Even the offical GOP website says “ours is the party of equality of opportunity”. (http://www.gop.com/About/AboutRead.aspx?AboutType=4) So what is so wrong with a REPUBLICAN like Patrick Guerriero using the notion of equality? Are you now going to accuse the people running the GOP website of littering the webpages of the party with “leftist watchwords”? How many times do you suppose the word “equality” appears in GOP campaign materials? On the website? In the platform? They use it hundreds of times. Why is Patrick so wrong for expecting the GOP to live up to its own campaign slogans?
GPW writes that “Log Cabin should avoid the term because conservative groups do”.
Let’s take a look at the 2004 Republican Party Platform:
“Every day, we strive to fulfill Lincoln’s vision: a country united and free, in which all people are guaranteed equal rights and the opportunity to pursue their dreams.”
“Afghanistan’s new constitution affords equal rights to all Afghan citizens…”
“The strength of communities is the people who inhabit them, the American citizens who spend their days working, striving, and caring for their families, and advancing toward the realization of their dreams. To ensure that all Americans have an opportunity to build better lives, we must provide the framework in which communities can flourish. That requires access to affordable and accessible health care, protection of America’s environment and natural resources, the maintenance of public safety and prosecution of people who violate the peace of communities, guaranteed rights and equal opportunities for all members of society, and compassionate help for our fellow citizens who are trapped in unhealthy or harmful situations.”
“Republicans are dedicated to pursuing women’s health care initiatives that include access to state-of-the-art medical advances and technology; equality for women in the delivery of health care services…”
There is even an entire section entitled “Ensuring Equal Opportunities”, which includes the statement that “Our nation is a land of opportunity for all, and our communities must represent the ideal of equality and justice for every citizen.”
Why is the GOP Party Platform filled with “leftist” and “socialist” watchwords? Don’t they know that conservative groups avoid the term “equality”?
Anonymous, first, it’s sad that you have to hide behind your anonymity to criticize me.
If you’ll note that in the sections of the GOP platform that you quote, the party uses the term “equal rights” and “equal opportunities” which is a lot different than the abstraction of “equality.” The only time (in the sections you quote) the party mentions the abstraction equality is in “the delivery of health care services” for women. And I’m not even sure what it means in that context.
Is Patrick talking about equality of opportunity and access? I’m not sure. This post takes issue with him for using the word “equality” to spin the Governor’s speech which was more about tolerance than equality. If Patrick is talking about equality of opportunity, he should say as much. More often than not, Log Cabin’s statements use the term equality unsupplemented by “of opportunity.” Had he supplemented his frequent use of equality with “of opportunity” more frequently, I would not have criticized the organization for the use of the term. Once we have the term “equality of opportunity” it becomes less of an abstraction than the word unmodified.
And anyway, as far as I can tell, since I can’t get a copy of the full text of the Governor’s remarks is that his speech was more about tolerance than anything else. What’s wrong with a release saying as much? As I put it in the post, “That they picked out the word “equality” and eschewed “tolerance” shows an organization closer to the leaders of the gay left . . . .”
My point is that Log Cabin needs to distinguish itself from the gay left. Using the expression, “equality of opportunity” would be a good place to start. I agree that there is nothing socialist about “equality of opportunity.” But, still Log Cabin should on focus on freedom because that is the founding idea of the GOP — and continues to be the animating principle of Reagan Republicans.
So, it’s not my rhetoric that’s dishonest, but yours.
GPW–
First, if your blog didn’t have a reputation for banning and censoring people who criticize you and for calling them “terrorists”, I wouldn’t need to be anonymous. If you don’t like the fact that people don’t feel free to post on your blog under their own names, you really have only yourself to thank. (I would note that until very recently, you yourself felt obliged to hide behind a pseudonym… and your actual name only appeared on this blog after others posted it elsewhere and the proverbial cat was out of the bag. Why do you decry others doing what you yourself have done?)
Second, IF YOU WILL READ MY POST (isn’t that annoying when people say that?), you will see that the GOP platform ALSO talks about the unspecified “equality of women” and “the ideal of equality for every citizen”. Did you miss those? Is the GOP talking about equality of opportunity there? I can’t tell.
Of course, this doesn’t resolve the issue that the term “equality” is liberally (heh!) sprinkled throughout the GOP party platform, depsite your own unsupported assertion that “conservative groups avoid the term”. Really, did you just make that up? Did you think no one would bother to check?
And while YOU may say that the Republican Party is more focused on freedom than on equality, that isn’t what the party’s website says. It clearly says there that “ours is the party of equality of opportunity”. If that isn’t what the GOP is about, then that kind of language really shouldn’t be on their official website. (And you still haven’t explained to me how the leftist watchword “equality” found its way into the party platform in the first place.)
More to the point, if you can’t tell what Patrick was talking about and if you don’t know what he meant, then why is your original post peppered with hot-button mischaracterizations of his statement as being “leftist” and “socialist”? How can you so characterize something you admit you don’t understand? Methinks you read what he said and then conveniently spun it in the most negative light you could cast it in. His statement, you reasoned, COULD be “socialist”… so let’s just call it that NOW and worry later about what he really meant. Is that it? It seems a little dishonest, for you to throw labels like “socialist” at a statement that you yourself concede you don’t fully understand. Being vague isn’t socialist, either, and that seems to be Patrick’s only crime here.
Admit I don’t understand? Where did I say that? I asked a rhetorical question. It’s Patrick’s job to clarify what he means. And since he uses it exactly the same way the gay left does, I note that he mimics their rhetoric.
You can rant on and on. But, my point remains (which you have yet to contest) that on gay issues, Patrick uses language identical to that of the gay left.
I did a google search for “‘Patrick Guerriero’ ‘equality of opportunity'” and came up empty-handed, not a single reference to a comment Patrick made espousing that noble concept. I could not find the expression “equality of opportunity” on Log Cabin’s website (but note that I could not find a search engine there, so maybe it exists on that blog–my initial google search of “‘Log Cabin Republicans”equality of opportunity'” yield no references to Log Cabin statements.)
In my comment, I distinguished equality (in the abstract) from “equality of opportunity.” Alas that you did not acknowledge that.
I stand by my statement that conservatives avoid the term because I was referencing the abstract notion of “equality” which Log Cabin uses so often –unmodified by “of opportunity.” I did read your post and referenced that point about equality for women. And in the other example of the word “equality” that you give, you’ll see that the GOP qualifies it by referring to the “ideal of equality.” An ideal is a quite different thing than the goal of a policy proposal.
Finally, at the outset of your rant, you claim that until recently, you claim I hid behind a pseudonym? Wrong again. I allowed my full name to be used approximately two months after I started blogging–and that well over 18 months ago.
More on this anon.
“my point remains (which you have yet to contest) that on gay issues, Patrick uses language identical to that of the gay left”
And so does the GOP platform, with its exceedingly broad musings about “the ideal of equality for all citizens”. What is your point? That Patrick is parroting the party platform? What a shocker! I have yet to hear you criticize the party for including the term in its campaign publications. Nor that George W. Bush has characterized our country as “a republic founded on equality for all” (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,463671,00.html). So maybe Patrick was just using language identical to the Republican President, ever think of that? Of course you didn’t, because him using language identical to the “gay leftists” makes such a jucier story!
Face it: you took his statement and spun it the way you wanted it to come out. You ignored the fact that it might mean something else. You ignored the fact that other Republicans say much the same thing when it suits them, without the magical “of opportunity” tacked on at the end. How is Patrick’s statements about “equality” any different from Bush’s statements about “equality for all”? Oh right… it is different because you like Bush and you don’t like Patrick. So Bush gets a pass while Patrick gets called “socialist”?
Given that technically Bush himself “uses language identical to that of the gay left” (that bit about “equality for all” sounds like it came right out ofAlec Baldwin’s mouth!). So what exactly is your point here?
And as long as we are being precise, perhaps you should note that you only distinguished between “equality” and “equality of opportunity” in your response and your follow-up… not in your original comment. In the original, you quite clearly made no such distinction.
“An ideal is a quite different thing than the goal of a policy proposal.”
An ideal is different from a goal? Really?
“I allowed my full name to be used approximately two months after I started blogging…”
But, at some point, you felt obliged to “hide” behind your anonymity. Right? Is it really so strange to you that others might feel the same way? Surely you haven’t forgotten in 18 short months how it felt, have you? Again, it is rather disingenuous of you to criticize others for doing what you yourself have done.
No, Anonymous, it wasn’t I who spun Patrick’s statement, but Log Cabin who spun the Governor’s speech. Recall that this is a post about Log Cabin’s release on that speech. The theme of that speech was tolerance and included (as far as I can tell since no transcript exists) one reference to “equality.” And yet that was the headline of the Log Cabin release.
I am aware that many conservatives use the term equality in a variety of contexts, but whenever Patrick (or others from Log Cabin use it), they use as do the gay left, usually as a stand-alone term. Let me repeat what I said in the post, that Log Cabin picked the word “equality” and eschewed “tolerance” says a lot about the organization. Had this been a one-time thing, I doubt I would have made much of it. But, on so many issues, Log Cabin sounds like just another gay group.
The difference between Patrick’s use of the word “equality” and that of the President (and other conservatives) is that Patrick uses it as a watchword (see the title to this post) whereas conservatives use it, as one concept among many.
Anonymous, don’t make assumptions about me. You’re just making excuses for your anonymity and your pusillanimity. When I responded to Bruce’s invitation to join the blog, I knew that I would have to come out. I didn’t then come onto someone else’s blog, using a tone which even someone who agrees with some of your ideas calls “unfortunate.”
And yes, an ideal is different from a goal.
The point of this post is that, when discussing gay issues, Log Cabin uses language nearly identical to that of the gay left. If you can find examples where Log Cabin uses the rhetoric of American conservatism on gay issues, including references to equality, please let me know and I will post as much. Today, I tried (and failed to find) examples of Patrick defining equality as “equality of opportunity.” Perhaps you will be more successful in your searches.
That gay left watchword is in the post directly above this one. You might want to check it out.
(And the two of you might want coordinate your spinnings, since it is turning into a farce on here.)
The leader of Log Cabin needs to be aggressive in defending Republicans, just like Republicans are oh so aggresive in defending gays and lesbians.
With all due respect, sir, libertarians readily embrace equality: equality of opportunity. The egalitarianism of leftism, against which you so whole-heartedly have rallied, is the idea that equality is achieved through government-enforced parity. You will find that, while you hold the world “equality” to be a hidden reference to radical leftism, it is in fact your interpretation of the word that is flawed.
Your ready eagerness to lump Republicans and Liberarians (I capitalize the word, as I assume you are referring to members of the Libertarian Party of the US) in the same category raises far more concerns for me than this so-called “watchword.” You are an intelligent individual: you should be able to recognize the inherent flaws of this grouping, especially considering the current administration. Do not forget that the party you so indefatigably support has proposed such things as the “Federal Marriage Amendment.” Libertarians everywhere recognize this as an unacceptable abridgement of liberties, whether they be of the states or the individual.
While you and I may share a great deal of respect for President Reagan, you are out of touch with reality. You clearly seem unaware as to the direction of the party he once led. While Mr. Guerriero may seem to you to be merely kow-towing, you are a fool to think that the man has a variety of other choices. He has two: be quiet in the face of a rapidly fascist-leaning party, or stand up for himself and the group he represents, even if that means making alliances with the “gay left.” Do not be mistaken: the party of Ronald Reagan, the closest thing to a libertarian we’ve seen in office since Hoover, is dead.
There are two practical choices, and while neither of them are appealing, there is a clear need for all self-identifying homosexuals to define their priorities. You will, to coin a phrase of yours, kow-tow to a party that believes you are little more than a depraved immoral criminal, in the interests of your politics, and at the expense of your rights–not the leftist rights that limit in the interests of liberalism, but your true rights, which are at this moment rapidly withering away.