Gay Patriot Header Image

Log Cabin, ENDA and a Conservative Gay Agenda

Today, I received yet another e-mail from Log Cabin, imploring me to write to my Member of Congress, telling “them to vote YES ” on on┬áthe Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). While I certainly agree with the spirit behind the legislation to protect workers from discrimination based on their (as Log Cabin’s release puts it) “sexual orientation or gender identity,” I oppose this legislation because it prevents private businesses from setting their own employment policies.

While Log Cabin and other gay groups have been pushing Congress to pass this intrusive law, limiting the freedom of private organizations, many private companies have already shown a willingness to ban discrimination in their own companies. According to a recent piece in the Advocate, 432 (or 92%) of Fortune 500 companies “include sexual orientation in their employment nondiscrimination policies.” That’s up from 323 (or 65%) just 4 years ago. And to think this happened during a time when there was a Republican in the White House and for most of that time, with Republican majorities in both House of Congress.

So, despite a government cool to state action on behalf of gays, the private sector continued to recognize the importance of attracting top-notch employees who happened to be gay or lesbian.

WIth more and more companies offering such protections, ENDA and similar legislation has become increasingly gratuitous. And conservatives, at least those who hold true to the principles articulated by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, should be skeptical about any unnecessary legislation, especially when such laws increase the power of the state and limit the freedom of private organizations.

Instead of focusing on being liked by other gay organizations, it’s time that Log Cabin stand true to the principles of our party. They should instead focus on developing a legislative agenda based on those conservative and libertarian principles to confront problems we gay people face which the private sector cannot solve.

At the top of the agenda would be some kind of recognition of same-sex unions, with the priority being given to opening up immigration to partners from other lands and to allowing individuals to determine who can visit them in the hospital. And to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell and allow gay people to serve openly in the military.

Being conservatives, we understand that we may not be able to accomplish even that modest agenda in the near future, so would need to develop strategies to pass it incrementally, perhaps by starting with legislation that allows gay people to serve openly in non-combat roles in the military — while commissioning a study to determine the effect of open service on morale.*

Whatever the specifics of this agenda, it must have at its core not a commitment to the term of the gay left, “equality,” but focus on that idea which has inspired the founders of this great nation as well as the founders and great leaders of our own party, “freedom.”

So, I offer this challenge to Log Cabin–provide your conservative bona fides. Develop a freedom agenda for gay people. And thus you can both support the principles of our party — and promote a better society for gay Americans.

*Yes, I know there have been several studies. And that’s one reason I favor this study. We know what the results will be, but perhaps if it’s promoted with greater fanfare, it might get more public attention than have previous studies.

UPDATE: On a similar note, Eric Scheie writes today about freedom:

What I have never been able to understand is how opposition to laws against something is seen as support for whatever conduct the law would prohibit. I try to be polite to people, but I oppose criminalizing rudeness. For example, I would oppose the criminalization of words I would never use. How does that mean I advocate using them? There’s a movement to criminalize the “n” word which I oppose. Does that mean I believe in what they call “license” to use the word? Not at all.

(Emphasis added.)

He adds:

My complaint is with a society that has become so paralyzed that individuals and businesses are increasingly unable take any individual initiative. It leads to grotesque big brotherism, and I think the rise of the nanny state is directly related to the mentality that only the government can prohibit anything.

It’s a good essay and I would love to excerpt more, but that might prevent you from reading the whole thing–something I highly recommend. Via Instapundit.

UP-UPDATE: Shortly after posting this piece, I e-mailed Log Cabin’s Patrick Sammon alerting him to this. He wrote back and with his permission I am posting his response which appears below the jump. I may (at a later date) respond to his comments in a separate e-mail.


How to weaken a nation with one court ruling

German Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung is under fire for declaring that he would order a hijacked passenger jet to be shot down if it were being used in a terror attack, despite last year’s Constitutional Court ruling that it would be illegal. (Spiegel)

I’m stunned at the gross level of sheer stupidity in this. I’m not speaking about Minister Jung, though he should have answered with the vague that “all options would be considered”. The highest court in Germany has intervened in matters of national defense and severely weakened their country. I echo Hot Air‘s question of “If the court was meeting as the hijacked plane was zooming toward it, would the court change its no shoot down ruling?” If the people of Berlin, Hamburg, Muncih, or Frankfurt ever have to face a day like this…

…one wonders what their opinions of this decision will be afterwards. God help us from such useful idiots who mistakenly believe they are doing good. Of course, the fact that Germany has a “union representing the interests of military personnel” is breath-taking in itself, but that’s another matter.

— John (Average Gay Joe)

Smaller Rallies, Increasing Ambivalence about the War?

Roger Simon had a post yesterday which reminded me of one I had written just about two years ago. Commenting on the Rinky Dink Antiwar Demonstrations this past weekend, Roger finds their turnout “pretty pathetic.

Two years ago, I had asked, If Iraq is like Vietnam, how come the rallies keep getting smaller? And the rallies are still shrinking, smaller this year than they were in 2005. Back then, they were only a fraction on what they had been at the outset of the war. By contrast, in the Vietnam era, the rallies kept getting bigger as the war progressed.

Roger ponders the meaning of the increasingly sparsely-attended demonstrations:

What’s interesting is why this low turnout when, according to many polls, the public is supposedly massively against the war. If they are so antiwar, they certainly are pretty apathetic about it. This is another example of why Iraq is not Vietnam when filling the streets with demonstrators was a simple matter.

This also may mean that the public opinion polls themselves are not a decent measure of how people really feel. Although pollsters try, polls in general are particularly poor at measuring the depth of people’s convictions or natural human ambivalence. Ambivalent people don’t tend to get on a bus to go to a demonstration.

Something for Republicans to think about before looking to the latest polls to determine which way they intend vote on a certain issue. For that matter, it’s something the Democrats should also consider.

UPDATE (09.19) Hugh alerts us to this Politico piece which echoes my point:

But unlike during the Vietnam era, when the size and strength of street protests gradually grew over time, the Iraq war initially produced massive demonstrations that have since petered out. On Saturday, only about 20,000 gathered for what was billed a major peace march.