Gay Patriot Header Image

Individualism of Right Preferable to Left’s Ideology of Gay Identity

When I was coming out as a gay man in the early 1990s, I searched in vain for books which could help me deal with my difference. With the possible exception of Andrew Tobias’ (then published under the alias John Reid) The Best Little Boy in the World, I didn’t find a single book where the ideas or anecdotes corresponded to my ideas, my feelings or even my hopes. To be sure, there were a few novels I read and enjoyed, but too many included some notion of a gay consciousness, sense of some sort of abstract group identity, defined by the community rather than individual gay men and women.

That is, until 1993, when I discovered Bruce Bawer’s A Place at the Table: The Gay Individual in American Society. That wonderful book comes to mind today primarily because of its subtitle–the Gay Individual in American society. The other books developed an abstract notion of gay identity, based on the sociopolitical values of the gay community. As if merely by coming out, we abandon the values and ideas of those around us.

Given the focus on a community identity, it’s no wonder that so many gay activists — and their allies on the left — have difficulty grasping the notion of a gay conservative. So, so many on the left show so little sympathy for the lives of those individual gay men and women whom they would out to advance their partisan agenda.

Not only do they lack sympathy for these individuals, but it seems that some of those involved in the “outing” campaign want to punish them for not being “good homosexuals,” that is, by not adopting the party line on what it means to be gay. It almost seems that they want us to suffer. And their notion of coming out is not to promote the well-being of the individual gay man or lesbian, but so that her or she can become part of an interest group which promotes a left-wing agenda and works to elect Democrats to office.

They see us not as gay individuals, but as members of yet another interest group advancing the left-wing cause. No wonder they treat us as apostates.

While many of the leaders of the gay movement see themselves as part of a broad “progressive” force to change society, gay conservatives know that the modern American conservatism developed in opposition to the growth of the secular state. At least since Barry Goldwater, their focus has been on freedom, the right of the individual to live his life as he sees fit. Individualism has been at the core of American conservatism since its very early days. For example, in the 1960s, at the dawn of the American conservative movement, Chicago students called their quarterly journal the New Individualist Review.

It is this no wonder as Bruce noted yesterday that American conservatives are sticking up for Gays. They respect the privacy of gay Republicans, not necessary because we’re gay or Republican, but because we’re individual citizens. They may not agree some of our choices, but they respect our right to make them.

And that is really the difference between contemporary American conservatism and the ideology that defines the American left. Most of those on the right see us as individuals who should be left to live our lives as we see fit. While too many of those on the left see us as members of a group who should have the attitudes they deem appropriate to that group.

They may claim that they are for gay people and promote legislation which is supposed to advance our cause, yet when it comes to individual dealings with particular homosexuals, too many of them are no different that their social conservative adversaries — for they have a fixed notion of what it means to be gay. And that is why, in most debates, I side with the conservatives for as has been made manifest in numerous blog posts and even Op-Eds, the thinkers on the right, the true heirs of Abraham Lincoln, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan nor interested in bashing gays or even in using the state to advance their interests, but in treating us as individuals and letting us alone to live freely as individual Americans.

Since George Washington, the rallying cry of Americans has been liberty, freedom. And that freedom extends to gay people, whether they’re conservative or liberal, even if they want to live in the closet. We may not agree with their choice, but we support their right to make it. It’s their lives we’re talking about, not ours.

It’s time for gay leftists to stop being such nosy busybodies and learn to appreciate the diversity of our community. And take the time to understand why some gay people may not share their political ideology.

– B. Daniel Blatt (



  1. While many of the leaders of the gay movement see themselves as part of a broad “progressive” force to change society, gay conservatives know that the modern American conservatism developed in opposition to the growth of the secular state. At least since Barry Goldwater, their focus has been on freedom, the right of the individual to live his life as he sees fit. Individualism has been at the core of American conservatism since its very early days. …….It’s time for gay leftists to stop being such nosy busybodies and learn to appreciate the diversity of our community. And take the time to understand why some gay people may not share their political ideology.

    The GOP, in particular its leadership, does not share the ideology you have described. There is no Party that does. In fact, both Party’s are fiercely opposed to those ideals.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — October 20, 2006 @ 7:00 pm - October 20, 2006

  2. I do not think there is a problem with being a conservative gay and seeing yourself as an individual instead of having a ‘gay identity’, but you can’t have it both ways….you cannot expect to be a part of the ‘gay community’ when it suits you and an individual when it does not…people do have choices and as somebody who is a liberal and gay myself I guess one of the biggest differences between liberals and conservatives is the conservative’s belief in what in political science is termed “negative freedom” (that is the freedom to not be impinged upon by society) compared to liberal’s general belief in “positive freedom” (the freedom to be a full-fledged participant in society). As a liberal I am not looking for my own way out when things are bad, I believe that as a society we are only as strong as our weakest link. I guess we do have very different viewpoints.

    Comment by James — October 20, 2006 @ 7:10 pm - October 20, 2006

  3. “It’s time for gay leftists to stop being such nosy busybodies and learn to appreciate the diversity of our community.”

    I am not sure I understand, if we are all individuals and there is no real ‘gay identity’ then do we really have any “community”?

    Comment by James — October 20, 2006 @ 7:14 pm - October 20, 2006

  4. Dan, thanks for pointing out an important and fundamental difference between the GayLeft and conservative gays.

    I think the GOP is still the party of individual rights, liberty, freedom and advancing those values in society, our culture, in our economy. The GayLeftBorg misses the point behind the anti-tax sentiment in the GOP… it’s because most of us think govt doesn’t have a right to our hard earned money… anymore than the special interest group of victims-of-the-week have a right to expect govt to redistribute our wealth to them.

    It really is underscored not only by the difference you note, but by the difference between the concept of equality of outcomes versus equality of opportunity.

    Good post, Dan.

    And James, on your point: “… you cannot expect to be a part of the ‘gay community’ when it suits you and an individual when it does not”. False choices there, James.

    You can be a part of the gay community and be an individual who professes a conservative identity… except in the intolerant world of the GayLeftBorg. Which is the very POINT of this whole blog, James.

    Gheez, unplug the Borg lines, get a clue, think for yourself James. Just this once. Just on that point.

    How dense can you be?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 20, 2006 @ 7:58 pm - October 20, 2006

  5. I am not sure I understand, if we are all individuals and there is no real ‘gay identity’ then do we really have any “community”?

    Welcome to GPW’s strawman.

    What is opposed to individualism is not “gay ideology.” It’s communitarian values. There has been a long and necessary struggle in the nation’s history between these two value systems. Dan boils it down to personal petty politics, an effort to deprive gay “individuals” of their privacy (or something!) when outing’s propriety is really part of the greater question of whether we act more out of individual or communitarian values. He simply can’t conceive, it appears, of higher motives than bitch fighting.

    Nobody supports outing as sport and God knows the “gay left” hasn’t been nearly as active in outing as your local police department prior to the overturning of sodomy laws. Remember when you could open the newspaper and read the police blotter, listing the names of men arrested for violating the sodomy laws. You’ve lost all perspective here. People like Signorile and Mike Rogers aren’t simply outing gay people. They are outing gay people who actively work against your freedom as an individual and a member of a community. DUH.

    James asks the question that preoccupies queer theory and gay and lesbian studies programs. Were there no general consensus of gay “identity,” there could be no identity politics — no civil rights movement on behalf of “gay” people. (And conservatives and liberals share the same basic goals even if their tactics differ.)

    What constitutes that identity in political terms has shifted several times. The original modern movement, founded by Harry Hay and friends, was rooted in socialism. Then the Mattachine society took a more conservative position, ejecting Hay. Then the gay liberation movement allied itself with the new left and envisioned a sexual utopia. The alienating effect of that movement (plus the advent of AIDS) caused a move rightward to the so-called assimilation movement, where we remain today for the most part. Although the GayPatriots see themselves living amid a sea of leftists, anyone over the age of 40 knows quite well that gay people generally are far more conservative than they were 20 years ago.

    So, contrary to Dan’s apparent claim, there has never been a monolithic gay identity in political terms. There has been this cycling, creative tension. Nor has there ever been real agreement about what otherwise constitutes gay identity. The common word you find with people like Eve Sedwick is “incoherent.” We are a collection of echoes of sexual styles from throughout history that were reified, pathologized and criminalized in the 19th century. The word “heterosexual” was not created until the pathological word “homosexual” was created.

    There are mountains of books and journal articles you can read about the difficulty of sustaining a civil rights movement — a communitarian movement — and maintaining individuality. But my sense is that most people prefer simply to assume a martyred position — the ubiquitous role of the victim — than actually consider how necessary this tension between the individual and communitarian ethos is.

    I know, Dan: If I’d bothered to read what you wrote, I’d know that…..

    I’m riffing, like it or not.

    Comment by jonathang — October 20, 2006 @ 8:02 pm - October 20, 2006

  6. The most enduring thing about this outing series is how the right wing will not acknowledge this isn’t some libertarian issue. Nobody cares if the guy who owns the neighborhood Qwik E Mart is gay, Republican, or both. It is power and its use against the interests of gay people that moves the instigators against closeted Republicans.

    The people outed are assisting their employers in harming others by advancing policies that attack gay and lesbian people. Will they lose their jobs?; I doubt it. Will they advance to more powerful places and further their ability to harm other gays?; hopefully not. Will they suffer social scorn from gays of all political persuasions, one hopes.

    The excuse given by some is “[Democrat] says they oppose gay marriage.” Big deal. They weren’t the ones working to bring the constitution amendment up for a vote, and overwheming it was Democrats who voted against it. I’ve said it before, until recently, I thought it was a pathetic little sideshow. No more, this is the central front in the congressional GOP war on gays.

    Now I’m off to see if this newly out guy on ‘Gray’s Anatomy’ is cute.

    Comment by Sydney Talon — October 20, 2006 @ 8:21 pm - October 20, 2006

  7. This blog always misses the boat when it comes to the divide between gay conservatives and the rest of the gay community. When Republican politicans start consistently voting in favor of gay rights, the disdain aimed at the gay conservative by the rest of the community will disappear.

    So, get to work boys. Get out there and change the GOP.

    Comment by Chase — October 20, 2006 @ 8:24 pm - October 20, 2006

  8. When Republican politicans start consistently voting in favor of gay rights, the disdain aimed at the gay conservative by the rest of the community will disappear.

    Gay rights as invariably defined by the Gay Left.

    Comment by V the K — October 20, 2006 @ 8:31 pm - October 20, 2006

  9. Actually, Chase, your comment (#7) helps prove my point. You have just said that Republican politicians should support your agenda — what you define as gay rights. There are some of us, yours truly included, who oppose such legislation as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and Hate Crimes legislation on libertarian grounds.

    Perhaps, it’s time you learn to familiarize yourself with such arguments rather than insist on Republicans adopting a statist approach.

    We don’t miss the boat at all. It’s that, by and large, the “rest of the gay community” (as you put it) refuses to understand our ideas.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 20, 2006 @ 8:32 pm - October 20, 2006

  10. “Gay rights as invariably defined by the Gay Left.”

    The only right defined by the Republicans is the right to hide in the closet.

    Comment by Sydney Talon — October 20, 2006 @ 8:35 pm - October 20, 2006

  11. Chase, #7:

    The GOP will never fight for “Gay Rights”. At least I hope not. That’s because the GOP (unlike the Democrats) don’t see the country as partitioned up between different victim groups (“Two Americas”, anyone?), but as a great Nation, the Shining City on a Hill. They are optimists who love America as a whole, not only those who adhere to some sort of submissive mentality that demands they be cared-for by their fellow citizens.

    How about thinking about “Americans’ Rights” for a change?

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — October 20, 2006 @ 9:22 pm - October 20, 2006

  12. Interesting how all these lefties on the line seem to be saying, “What do you mean you can’t be an individual in the gay community. By the way, if you disagree with us, you’re a bigot and we hate you.”

    Let ’em whine and seethe, I’m just going to much some delicious Boy Scout popcorn.

    Comment by V the K — October 20, 2006 @ 9:23 pm - October 20, 2006

  13. #12 — My point exactly. I don’t want court-imposed same-sex marriage, I don’t want laws mandating that school textbooks be purged of all references to gender and “heteronormative” roles, as recently passed in California, and I don’t want public funding for sex-change operations for public employees.

    I want low taxes. I want secure borders, I want terrorism treated as a military issue, I want judges who follow the law not dictate it, I want educational systems that serve students not teachers’ unions, I want secure property rights. Republicans may be inconsistent on these issues, but the Democrat position is diametrically opposed to them on all counts.

    And any one of those issues is more important to me than being able to get a piece of paper from a government bureaucracy saying my relationship meets with official state approval.

    Comment by V the K — October 20, 2006 @ 9:33 pm - October 20, 2006

  14. #11 I meant,

    Comment by V the K — October 20, 2006 @ 9:33 pm - October 20, 2006

  15. Since there’s another James here, I’ll now call myself James G…

    Now, in recent articles some gay Republican staffers have been quoted annonymously out of concern for their careers.

    Not everyone has to be out, and not everyone chooses to be out. My question is, is a person really excercising his right as an individual when it comes to chosing being out versus closeted if the fear is a deciding factor?

    Why is a gay or lesbian person’s sexuality something to do with privacy but it isn’t that way for heterosexuals?

    Yes, gays and lesbians should live their lives the way they see fit, but I can’t help but think that if fear is a motivating factor as to how they live, the choice isn’t completely theirs.

    Comment by James G — October 20, 2006 @ 9:56 pm - October 20, 2006

  16. #13 And that is why I am a conservative. Libs have yet to learn that being gay does not mean I want to live in a nanny state, have illegal immigration treated as a ‘civil rights’ issue, coddle terrorists like errant schoolboys we all need to ‘understand, pour billions of dollars down the public school drain, or allow the government to take my property whenever it damn well pleases. Nope, none of that has squat to do with being gay.

    Comment by John — October 20, 2006 @ 10:01 pm - October 20, 2006

  17. #15 And what are these forced outings doing but playing right into what you, and I btw, find objectionable?

    Comment by John — October 20, 2006 @ 10:02 pm - October 20, 2006

  18. -They are optimists who love America as a whole,-

    Republicans are just as willing to divide America as anyone else. How many times have they said gay marriage or gay rights are a threat to families and to children?

    Comment by Carl — October 20, 2006 @ 10:04 pm - October 20, 2006

  19. How many times have they said gay marriage or gay rights are a threat to families and to children?

    And how can you be certain that — as formulated by the gay left — that they are not?

    I’m sure in 1965, lifelong welfare dependency, high taxes, progressive schools, and soft crime policies were all seen as great for families and children… and we all know how that worked out.

    Comment by V the K — October 20, 2006 @ 10:19 pm - October 20, 2006

  20. 8: Well, how about they stop voiting for / supporting laws, ammendments, etc that deny equal protection under the law to gas and lesbians? That could be a step in the right direction.

    Comment by Kevin — October 20, 2006 @ 10:23 pm - October 20, 2006

  21. “It is this no wonder as Bruce noted yesterday that American conservatives are sticking up for Gays. They respect the privacy of gay Republicans, not necessary because we’re gay or Republican, but because we’re individual citizens.”
    You have it all right there!
    I was never politically active until I saw the attempt to destroy Clarence Thomas by the Left. The fact that this man’s life was meaningless against their quest to advance their agenda hit me like a ton of bricks. The individual is nothing–it is the group which trumps all. Every person’s humanity is the nexus of mutual understanding and respect.

    Comment by Kitty — October 20, 2006 @ 10:33 pm - October 20, 2006

  22. #1: Amen. With regard to those here who consider themselves conservative, I don’t think I differ with them so much on principle… I just don’t agree that the GOP, at least for the past decade and probably longer, embodies those principles in any way.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 20, 2006 @ 11:20 pm - October 20, 2006

  23. #4: most of us think govt doesn’t have a right to our hard earned money…

    Amen to that, too. Not one single penny of our hard earned money. Which particular Republican politicans agree with this?

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 20, 2006 @ 11:23 pm - October 20, 2006

  24. Nobody, or almost nobody, is disputing an average citizen’s right to live in the closet. We all have a closet of some sort or another to some degree. That’s just human. The dispute centers on whether a member of Congress can vote to: ban gay adption in DC, against adding sexual orientation to an employment non-discrimination law, against adding sexual orienaton to hate crimes law; then go home to his boyfriend who is also his chief of staff, and claim that it’s nobody’s right to know.
    Or whether the Speaker of the US House can bring to the floor a vote on a proposeal to amend the US Constitution to create a second class of citizenship for gays, go home with his gay chief of staff housemate.
    Say what?
    Or a US Senator who, as a stauch religious values conservative votes against gay people 100% of the time, then gets his old ugly self off with strange men in train station bathroom.
    Lord help me!
    I had no idea of the extent of power wielded by gay Repbulicans in this Congress until Ms. Foley’s craze for measuring teenage c*cks lifted the veil. I have since been educated to the workings of the gay GOP in Washington. It’s quite a story. I am shocked by the depravity, but not surprised at the source.

    Comment by Donny — October 20, 2006 @ 11:25 pm - October 20, 2006

  25. V the K: Gay rights as invariably defined by the Gay Left.

    Equality under the law, I hope, is something we could all agree on — regardless of what we want the government to do, I would hope we’d agree that it should do so without regard to sexual orientation, that the law shouldn’t make a distinction. That’s what I expect from any politician I’d vote for, as a necessary but not sufficient condition to earn my vote. (Which is why I touched the screen on Michael Badnarik’s name in the 2004 presidential election.)

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 20, 2006 @ 11:28 pm - October 20, 2006

  26. #9 GPW: There are some of us, yours truly included, who oppose such legislation as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and Hate Crimes legislation on libertarian grounds.

    I agree with you on those issues. But the question I’ve asked on here a few times, without getting any answer, is why should I support the GOP on libertarian grounds? Why should I believe that they’re going to reduce the size and scope of government if they get two more years of power? (I am most certainly not saying that the Democrats are better; just saying that it hasn’t helped to have Republicans in control, no matter what lip service they pay to libertarian ideas.)

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 20, 2006 @ 11:30 pm - October 20, 2006

  27. #19 V the K: And how can you be certain that — as formulated by the gay left — that they are not?

    Because there’s nothing wrong with me or with my relationship. It’s the same in all essentials as any straight life partnership. No child will be harmed if the world around me treats my relationship the same as my parents’.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 20, 2006 @ 11:37 pm - October 20, 2006

  28. Unless you support a businesses right to fire an employee based on sexuality, not performance, you should support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

    To say you don’t support ENDA is a non-starter. The right for everyone to be judged in the workplace based on performance and performance alone, must be protected by the federal government.

    We undermine our economy and productivity by not doing so. Many businesses understand this, which is why non-discrimination clauses are part of workplace rules for many top corporate companies. But corporate America can only take the issue so far. The federal government must finish what corporate America has started.

    ENDA will one day be federal law because it embodies the virtue of American values, that hard work and determination are the keys to success. Sex and sexuality can play no role in determining who suceeds and who does not. It is a vital protection and one that must be written into federal law.

    And so it will be done.

    Comment by Chase — October 21, 2006 @ 12:05 am - October 21, 2006

  29. #28: I disagree. If I own a business, it’s my right to make decisions about that business based on any factors I choose. It’s what it means to “own” something.

    If I ever own a business, I reserve the right to discriminate against people who have anti-gay (= anti-me) opinions, even if they claim that those opinions are an adjunct of their religion or “political belief” (the latter being declared a protected class by some local ordinances in my area). I respect their right to such opinions; I just don’t want to associate with those people.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 21, 2006 @ 12:10 am - October 21, 2006

  30. I think one of the problems with the conservative idealism of individual rights is that it is a viciously radical brand of individualism they seem to be talking about, a sort of social darwinism(it is so ironic that those religious righties don’t believe in darwin). In a society where there is massive inequality of power, money, etc, having a purely free market will without fail massively shift power, money, etc to those at the top, it will not make people more free in most meaningful ways. Conservatives often make the mistake of belivieng that Freedom is something that is readily identifiable, ie. I am either free or I am not…But in fact we always have some sort of limits on our freedom, certainly for the rich and powerful freedom comes with nearly limitless possibilities, but to the average person or the poor, one’s “free” choices are massivly constrained…What good is freedom for if it is just “freedom”?

    Comment by James — October 21, 2006 @ 12:14 am - October 21, 2006

  31. #2 “you cannot expect to be a part of the ‘gay community’ when it suits you and an individual when it does not”

    Well, I can’t be part of the “gay community” but I’m certainly part of many different communities as well as an individual separate from all of them. This seems rather normal to me. Doesn’t everyone have a variety of alliances and identities?

    Comment by Synova — October 21, 2006 @ 1:27 am - October 21, 2006

  32. Heh, I guess everyone responded to community identity already.

    Why should libertarian vote Republican? Although the Democrats are better on some social issues, it’s not because they believe people should be free to make bad choices, it’s because they believe that those are not bad choices. Overall the Democrats are very much opposed to individual responsibility. Are the Republicans better? Not a lot. A little bit on capitalism. A little bit at least on the *concept* of individual responsibility. Even considering wiretap and detention laws, does any libertarian actually believe that Democrats will promote more privacy and protection rather than less? Republicans win with 2nd ammendment and the right to self-protection, mostly. And, in general, they seem to take the threat of Islamic radicals more seriously.

    Comment by Synova — October 21, 2006 @ 1:52 am - October 21, 2006

  33. I would like to understand something. What exactly is preventing you from being conservative gay individuals? Aren’t you that already? Is someone or something preventing you from voting Republican in the voting booth? Many posts here ask the question, “what freedoms have been taken away?” in response to lamentations about the Patriot Act and such. Please describe what has been taken away from you as a conservative gay individual? Don’t describe what has been taken away from another individual, but rather you, yourself. Thanks.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 21, 2006 @ 3:45 am - October 21, 2006

  34. Daniel, Excellent piece.

    Mr. Rogers has decided to “”out”” one of Tom Coburn’ staff. I found this on his blog and thought it was worth sharing.

    Coburn to investigate AIDS conference spending (Gay)
    Fashion show, luxury suite with grand piano deemed wasteful

    Friday, October 20, 2006

    U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) is looking into whether the federal government acted prudently by spending “millions of dollars” to subsidize six separate AIDS conferences this year, which hundreds of federal employees attended at the government’s expense, an aide to Coburn said.

    In a series of e-mails sent to the news media, Coburn’s legislative assistant, Roland Foster, pointed to promotional literature for the U.S. Conference on AIDS, held Sept. 21-25 in Hollywood, Fla., which highlighted an official “Latin Fiesta,” a “sizzling” fashion show, and plush, oceanfront hotel rooms.

    In one of his e-mails, Foster disclosed that Paul Kawata, executive director of the National Minority AIDS Council, a Washington, D.C., group that organized the Florida AIDS conference, stayed in a penthouse suite at Hollywood’s Westin Diplomat Hotel that included a large screen TV, a luxury spa and a grand piano.

    “The 92 [federal] employees and over $405,000 in federal funds spent on this conference exceed the 78 [U.S. Department] of Health & Human Services employees who attended and $315,000 spent on the International AIDS Conference in Toronto, Canada held just a month earlier,” Foster said.

    He said the Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information & International Security, which Coburn chairs, has learned that federal employees participated in, and federal funds were likely allocated for, recent AIDS conferences in Washington, D.C., Boston, and at least two other cities this year.

    “That means that during the last five months, there have been at least six federally supported AIDS conferences that have cost millions of dollars,” Foster said.

    Kawata called Coburn’s criticism unfair. He said tourist-related agencies in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale area and a local host committee paid for all social events associated with the conference as part of an effort to attract visitors to South Florida in the middle of the hurricane season.

    He said the same agencies, along with some corporate sponsors, picked up the cost for most meals for conference participants.

    The Westin hotel gave him the luxury suite with the grand piano free of charge, Kawata said, along with 25 free meeting rooms, as a “perk” for booking 950 guest rooms at the hotel, 11 months ago, for a conference that drew 3,000 attendees. He said the remaining attendees stayed at four additional hotels nearby.

    “The rooms at the Westin were $129 a night, and the rate at one of the overflow hotels was $94, which we think were great rates,” Kawata said.

    When asked about concerns by Coburn that NMAC chose a luxury, beachside resort hotel for the conference, Kawata said the group could not find a low-budget hotel that could accommodate such a large conference and the required number of large meeting rooms.

    Coburn’s press secretary, John Hart, said Coburn plans to investigate whether federal government agencies are wasting money by sending large numbers of federal officials and providing subsidies to AIDS conferences for which the benefit to the public or people with AIDS is questionable.

    He said Coburn is aware of Foster’s e-mails about the AIDS conferences and that the Oklahoma senator agrees fully with Foster’s statements.

    Coburn, a strong opponent of gay rights legislation, has won allies among both Republicans and Democrats in his efforts to curtail what he and bipartisan watchdog groups consider wasteful government spending.

    Gay Republican activist Jim Driscoll served as a Bush administration appointee on the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS when Coburn, a physician, served as the panel’s co-chair. Driscoll said he believes Coburn has the interests of people with AIDS in mind in his probe into AIDS conference spending.

    Other AIDS activists have called Coburn a champion of conservative Christian groups that have pushed through abstinence-only until marriage programs instead of proven AIDS prevention programs that promote condom use.

    Kawata said the NMAC-sponsored U.S. Conference on AIDS is the nation’s largest annual gathering of AIDS service providers. He said the conference, among other things, provides training and information on new developments in the AIDS epidemic for employees of community-based AIDS clinics.

    “This is a conference to help them do their jobs better,” he said.

    According to Kawata, the Department of Health & Human Services provided NMAC with funds to pay for scholarships that enabled at least 950 minority staff members of local, community-based AIDS groups to attend the conference.

    Foster stated in one of his e-mails that an investigation by Coburn’s Senate subcommittee found that at least 92 federal employees attended the NMAC conference, and that the government spent at least $405,000 on the event.

    He said the conference took place at a time when Congress was deliberating over the Ryan White CARE Act, the largest federal AIDS program, and noted that NMAC joined other AIDS advocacy groups in opposing the legislation because of a dispute over funding allocations for different states.

    Comment by Brit — October 21, 2006 @ 8:42 am - October 21, 2006

  35. #32 Synova: Your analysis is largely one I agree with. I won’t be supporting either establishment party until one of them starts standing up in a meaningful and coherent way for the values I cherish. In the “Cut and Run” conservative thread (post 10) I described some ways in which Republicans in Maryland have totally alienated anyone who might vote for them because they’re not as socialist as Democrats. It doesn’t seem like those individuals are even interested in getting my vote anymore.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 21, 2006 @ 11:33 am - October 21, 2006

  36. Chase in #28, I support the right of business to set its own employment policies. If a company is stupid enough to discriminate against an otherwise qualified employee because of his sexuality, then it will suffer in the marketplace. So, well, said, kdogg36 in #29.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 21, 2006 @ 12:57 pm - October 21, 2006

  37. “StopSexualPredators.Com” Fake Blog Traced To Human Rights Campaign.
    Was used to out story about Foley ABC

    See ACE of SPADES

    Stop October Surprises

    Comment by Brit — October 21, 2006 @ 4:10 pm - October 21, 2006

  38. Hmmmm… no wonder they were so quiet.

    Comment by Frank IBC — October 22, 2006 @ 11:15 am - October 22, 2006

  39. And outside of the GayLeftBorg, who exactly didn’t think the HRC and it’s radical activist staff weren’t behind MikeRogers and JohnAvarosis?

    Oh, I know, the same ones who think the MSM isn’t liberally biased, the Courts only interpert the law, Jon Stewart isn’t a mouthpiece for snarky Democrats, and the military is evil. The DNC leadership.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 23, 2006 @ 8:51 am - October 23, 2006

  40. If the rallying cry of freed extends to gay people (which conservatives supposedly adhere to), then why are conservatives leading the charge to pass social laws that stop gays from having the same rights as everyone else?

    Comment by Kevin — October 23, 2006 @ 6:08 pm - October 23, 2006

  41. Because the majority is opposed to it, Kevin.

    Why you and your fellow leftists claim you want “freedom”, but then demand that your totalitarian will of your tiny minority be imposed whether voters like it or not astonishes me.

    The simple fact of the matter is that gays have not demonstrated to enough people that we need, want, or would put marriage to any good use — and, given that our movement is made up primarily of people like yourself who bash religion and claim that Republicans want to put gays in concentration camps and murder them, that’s no great surprise.

    Perhaps if you could show respect for others’ views, instead of loudly insisting that the fact that you’re gay means you don’t have to listen to anyone else or accept anyone else’s opinions, we wouldn’t have this problem. But simply put… can’t.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 24, 2006 @ 12:57 am - October 24, 2006

  42. NDXXX, well put.

    Where guys like Kevin, DanielFtL, sean-p-piddle, jimmy and others argue that democracy is some shelter organization for minority rights… kind of like the UN is for 3rd World despots… the truth is that the GayLeftBorg took a page out of the highly successful handbook of VictimHoodActivism from the DNC, from the 1970’s ecoTerrorists and others by using the courts and manipulative legal highjinx to secure the advancement of policy not available to them at the ballot box.

    That’s why conservatives are so keen on reversing years of liberal policy activism from the bench by the Left and complicit judges cut-off from accountability. It’s a huge issue in the culture war.

    I’ve not found a single responsible GOPer in Michigan who thinks gays don’t deserve to share in the American Dream, don’t deserve to enjoy all the rights offered to all –it’s when the GayLeftBorg defines gay rights as their own version of political activist agenda items that the GOP has problems. In fact, I think I recall Presidential-elect Geo Bush in 2000 saying that gay men and women would serve without distinction of their sexual preferences in his Administration.

    It was right then that the “clucking” from the GayLeftBorg began in earnest.

    In Michigan, I have no problem securing and exercising my rights as a gay, as a Father, as a partner in a committed relationship, as a worker. None. I just don’t think I have MORE rights than anyone else… it really is that simple.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 24, 2006 @ 9:39 am - October 24, 2006

  43. Stay the Course: Another Democrat Dirty Trick…

    I certainly don’t remember the President ever saying anything about “stay the course” being the strategy in Iraq so suspected that this was another Democrat dirty trick….

    Trackback by Jon Swift — October 24, 2006 @ 7:24 pm - October 24, 2006

  44. This site is satire, right?

    Are you the True Believers? Or are the TB the Republican ‘Base’ that thinks you will be ‘Left Behind’?

    Fair enough that you have your own political ideals. But you do realise that your supposed allies in the Christian Right despise you, to the point of hoping that you burn in Hell for eternity, don’t you?

    I get it, you’re just filled with self-hatred to the point where you damn others like yourselves.

    Your choice…

    Comment by trapper — October 25, 2006 @ 1:39 pm - October 25, 2006

  45. Put bluntly, trapper, people are free to think what they wish.

    And quite honestly, given that you and your fellow Democrats pander to those same people, what exactly is your point?

    How do you like the fact that Howard Dean takes your money, says he likes you, and then turns around and spits on you when he’s in front of those same people to show that he “shares their values”?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 25, 2006 @ 2:30 pm - October 25, 2006

  46. Hello, i love! Let me in, please 🙂

    Comment by Lusidvicel — December 18, 2006 @ 11:37 am - December 18, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.