Given the particular niche we have found in the blogosophere, Bruce’s post two weeks ago inquiring into the conservative homosexual agenda may well rank as one of the most important pieces we have published. Or maybe I’m just saying that because it’s something I’ve thought about for as long as I’ve accepted my sexual orientation.
Indeed, the one thing which has most troubled me about Log Cabin is that on nearly every gay issue, they seem to take the exact same position as the other gay organizations, almost all of whom have allied themselves with various left-wing and liberal groups in the political arena. The leadership of that ostensibly Republican organization rarely seems to ask if those policies are consistent with conservative principles.
To be sure, there have been exceptions when Log Cabin took a stand on issues at odds with that of the gay groups, notably in 2005 when it joined in an alliance with conservative groups supporting the president’s plan to reform Social Security. They made the argument that the proposed reforms would give gay people greater freedom to allocate their own benefits, thus bypassing federal laws preventing an individual from designating a beneficiary, allowing only a spouse to receive those benefits.
Yesterday, as I was working on my post on how gun control harms gay people, I recalled Log Cabin’s support of Social Security reform and realized the common feature of these ideas was that they represented policy proposals which, while not specifically targeted to gay people, offered reforms which did indeed help gay people.
Moreover, these changes are consistent with conservative ideas, particularly in furthering freedom. They don’t just benefit gay people. They benefit society at large. As Glenn Reynolds noted in linking my piece on gun control, it’s not just bad for gays, “It’s bad for everybody. Except criminals.”
So, after repealing discriminatory laws (e.g., the ban on gays serving openly in the military) and achieving some kind of state recognition of our relationships, the gay conservative agenda would be a particularly conservative one, supporting (as Log Cabin did with Social Security reforms) policies which do not specifically benefit gays, but which expand freedom thus making it easier for us to address problems peculiar to us as individuals.
Hear, hear!
My policy positions on most issues have nothing to do with my sexual orientation. They have to do with economic or foreign policy issues. I wish people would cease looking at everything from the point of view of their gayness, blackness, Christianity, sex, etc. Hell, we are all Americans, not hyphenated Americans.
My personal agenda is whatever is good for America, and preserving the way of life that is 2nd to none in the world. Gay or straight, that should be any real American’s agenda. We’re all protected under the Constititution as Americans. No hyphen needed. Unless you’re a liberal-Amerikan (a.k.a. socialist/marxist/democrat). Then, I’m not sure what your agenda is – except it’s about as opposite of what’s best for this country.
Daniel, Daniel, Daniel. Any political activist and leader of a movement will inform you that a group’s agenda for reform or change needs to be tailored to the group’s primary interest(s) or else hazard being lost as a champion of everything from apple pie to Hummer trucks to crusty, chewey artisan bread for the masses.
If the GayRight wants to argue for 2d A rights as general condition of proper society, it ought to commend its members to support mainstream, legitimate 2d A right advocacy groups. Reach out to NRA and conservationist/hunting groups like Gays4Guns, Dykes4Ducks, etc.
If you want to rail against the machine of the GayLeft, then argue that the GayRight is in favor of meaningful and pointed dialogue in America to demonstrate and educate that the gay community isn’t a liberal monolith. Because that’s how most Americans still view gays. Adding 2d A rights to a GayRight agenda doesn’t get you there any faster than adopting an anti-global warming stance, a US-troops-shouldn’t-be-commanded-by-NATO-generals stance, a Right2Work stance or a renewed American isolationist foreign policy stance.
I can understand why SS reform should be of concern to gays given the lack of parity in the treatment of partners… but the 2d A? It’s a stretch of relevancy that jeopardizes the credibility GayRight groups have on gay issues.
GayRight agenda items should address those issues which are unique to gays. It’s why the GayLeft types are vulnerable on abortion rights, etc.
Let’s learn from the GayLeft’s mistakes; not repeat them.
The core issue at hand is wrapped up in the modifier: gay. The society as a whole has a fairly good working understanding of what conservative means. The society as a whole confuses gay with the stereotype that Hollywood and TV unleash. I believe that the gay conservative agenda must develop a clear set of reasons of where and how conservative societal norms should be expanded to accept individuals who are gay.Â
A "gay conservative" agenda, by basic English grammar, could only be both:
(1) A gay agenda formed on conservative principles, i.e., on what is good for society as well as gays; and
(2) A conservative agenda that accents the rights, reforms and/or issues of particular interest or necessity to a gay life.
It’s not rocket science. But, one or two on the GP blog who like treading water with the special kids, may try to make it rocket science – or to drain it of everything except pure reactionism against their pet-peeve "GayLeft liberal monolith" – or even to try to tell Dan a thing or two he had argued himself. 😉
This blog spends a lot of time raging against Log Cabin. (The ostensible gay Republican group, not the pancake syrup. I presume this blog is — like all right thinkers — 100 percent pro-syrup.) Anyway, here is my serious question about a group I don’t take seriously:
Is Log Cabin really a political group for gay Republicans? Or is it a gay social and dating group that uses politics as its hook?
I’m under the impression that it’s the latter. And I’m cool with that. And if it is just the latter — that Log Cabin is just a social club and dating service — why are we demanding that its politics conform better to our conservative positions?
A little historical note.
In 1978 there was an anti-gay ballot initiative in California called the Briggs initiative. Carter wouldn’t go anywhere near this issue. In fact, Carter went out of his way to avoid being photographed with anyone known to be gay. Reagan came out against the initiative and that, probably more than any other single factor, helped defeat it in the election.
There is no reason for conservatives to be anti-gay. The alignment of economic conservatives and religious conservatives was always a marriage of convenience if not an accident of history. But they are still wed and until the divorce is finalized, you are going to have a hard time convincing most Americans that they can be conservative and gay at the same time. I know plenty here disagree with me but you live in the real world and must confront this on a regular basis. Most gay people think the R following a politician’s name means homophobe. That’s not always true, but after a generation of pandering to homophobes it’s hard to feel sorry for Republicans who played the game and don’t like the score.
But what about details? Well, I suggested in the thread a couple weeks ago:
That’s how I’d cover point (1), a gay agenda that is also good for society. Covering point (2), a conservative agenda for society that is also good for gays, I suggested yesterday:
Well and there we have it. That’s what passes for specifics on the GayRight agenda… the right to be bigoted against Islamic American citizens by implying they want to enforce their religious laws on America… the right to keep decent medical care away from the riffraff who "litter the hallways" of our hospitals… the most silly right of the season: to be free from terrorist attacks?
Oh yeah. There’s a "right" that no liberal believes in.
Shall we also add the right to know what’s under Area51 now or do we wait for the edited version?
>the right to be bigoted against Islamic American citizens by implying they want to enforce their religious laws on America
This is funny.. you’re defining a group of people by their faith.
Their faith has a clear command: Impose Sharia Law whereever you can when you are capable of doing it.
And you then accuse US of assigning them that activity.
No , idiot.. that’s what their religion tells them to do. By definition if you’re an Islamic-American you will be compelled to spread Sharia law or else you will be regarded as an apostate.
I didn’t know not being stupid was now regarded as bigotry.
Good ol’ MM. Always name-calling! :-) More, please.
Oh, and by the way, MM: I *didn’t* imply "Islamic American citizens… want to enforce their religious laws on America". But you just did.
As Vince caught on – and any other mentally normal reader would – I was speaking of the goals of the terrorists… ‘Nuff said.
Oh, and as for this:
Please check your Declaration of Independence and your United States Constitution. As one of them puts it:
In other words: Government is there, above all, to protect people’s right to life and liberty. I think the other document refers to it more as a right to "life, liberty and property."
But, whatever it is, let it be called "The silliest right of the season" in MM’s world… and anybody who likes it, "bigot".
Imagine that. Jefferson was wrong; Life and liberty aren’t unalienable human rights from God. Thank you, MM, I appreciate your edumacating me.
Au contraire. I haven’t ever once even so much as ***mentioned*** Americans who follow the Islamic religion. Not once. Not ever. You have.
OK, for the grownups on GayPatriot: How about if we get back to intelligent, topical discussion, "What is the conservative gay agenda?" Here’s where I left my version:
Grownups, what would your version be?
Most gay people think the R following a politician’s name means homophobe.Â
That is entirely their fault.
Because, as I am fond of showing, gays and lesbians and their organizations and national leadership fully endorse and support as "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive" and give millions of dollars to politicians who push and support things like FMA and state constitutional amendments that they scream are "pandering to homophobes".
So in short, it’s not "pandering to homophobes" that bothers gays and lesbians; it’s that people are not Democrat Party members. They have linked being gay with being the most extreme of leftist, antireligious, and intolerant social liberals; hence, it should be no surprise that most Americans look at gay people askance.
Dear Dallas,
We keep having the same fight. Democrats are not as good as they should be on gay issues. Republicans are abysmal.  but your standard is that Democrats have to be perfect and republicans just have to be against public executions of gays to get a pass.
I agree we should decide on a uniform minimum  standard and those who don’t meet it should not get an endorsement regardless of party.
I am completely new to The Republican Party or Conservativism in general. I must say that I am yet to become a proud Republican. In my eyes I see that if the party does not make modern advances with society eventually The American population will learn to almost despise the GOP. One of the first things I ever learned about the Republican Party was that Republicans believe that the Federal Government should stay out of the homes. Now with that beginning and in our constitution that government is not ran by church, why do we cater to Christian groups. Why do we accept money from these groups, yes I understand that we need it from anywhere we can get it. But to the point that it affects voting. Telling someone that because their gay they dont have the same rights as someone else. Still says to me that religion is involved. Or how we still support the DEA. Now dont get me wrong drugs are bad. But a true Republican to me says that it is human choice and government has no right to tell someone they cant. If Marijuana was legalized isn’t it something that could be taxed. Isn’t that more money to put back into the American people. Instead of spending the money to arrest some man who is selling marijuana just so he can feed his kids cause working at McDonalds just doesn’t pay enough. Please everyone knows that what weed does to you… Does not compare to what alcohol does to you.  Same with the Patriot act. All it does is take every Muslim in the United States and put them in category because the muslim faith is now toe in toe with Terrorism. I was still very young during the Gulf War but I remember learning that many people in the Muslim Faith believed that it was disrespectful for us to put a base in Saudi Arabia. Now wouldn’t we find it disrespectful if someone decided to put a base right in the middle of jerusalem that we find to be holy ground. Where do we have the right? More than anything I just want to learn. Please help me….
New Republican, I have some questions for you. 1. How are Christian groups being "catered to" by our government? 2. How do the donations of Christian groups to political candidates "affect voting?" 3. What Christian group told gays they don’t have the same rights as everyone else? 4. Regarding the man who quit McDonald’s and began selling marijuana because his paychecks weren’t sufficient for him to feed his kids: where on Earth did you get the idea that such a person actually exists (other than on Showtime)? 5. How exactly does the Patriot Act put every Muslim in the same category? 6. How would U.S. forces patrol the Iraq no-fly zone after the Gulf War without a base in the Middle East? 7. Who filled your head with all of this nonsense?
"I am new to the Republican Party, but…" That’s a slight twist. Usually, the troll starts out with "I have always been a Republican, but…"
It is, of course, *absurd* that anyone who actually believed the stuff NR listed (that Sean A did a great job cataloguing) would then choose to *become* a Republican.
Personally, I am smelling the same troll that posted as "Jae Anderson" in the other thread… and that has posted under other sockpuppet troll names here in the past. Same canards.
#19: One of the things I admire most about Gaypatriot is that it really is the best possible resource for anyone who truly wants to understand and learn more about conservative values held by gays from a rational perspective. Â However, I don’t think there can be a more reliable red flag that we are dealing with a useless troll than the "questions" presented by "New Republican," i.e.–"I am very interested in conservative values and learning more about how gays fit within the Republican Party. Â My only reservation is that they haven’t managed to strip Christians of their First Amendment rights and properly marginalize them as the bigoted, homophobic savages that they are." Â To me, that’s no different from saying that they agree with most of the party’s ideas except its pesky, irritating support for freedom and equality. Â Clearly, "New Republican’s" core beliefs would be better served by membership in the Democratic Party. Â Perhaps he and the poor, victimized pot dealer who’s "just trying to feed his kids" can go down and register together.
My first reaction to "NR" was "My God.. why in the world would you join the Republican Party now?"
My experience with gay friends who are conservative/republican has always boiled down to one issue: Â economics/finance. Â All of the, without question are fairly well-to-do financially (including my best friend). Â they believe that voting Republican will help them keep/increase their wealth.
First off by portraying me as a useless troll. You dont know who I am the people I know or the problems in my life I face. First off to the person that says that working at McDonalds will feed a family of four is crazy. Let’s see you work for $7.50 an hour and try to pay your bills, feed yourself, put gas in your car. etc etc. If anything you need to wake up and smell the freakin blood sweat and tears that lower income family’s face everyday. Now going by just core principles I do believe The Republican Party has more to offer the American People than The Democratic Party. Because I question I am lesser. Because i choose to pay attention to the fact that there are people that only make 16,000 or less a year. Working everyday being law biding citizens. Now dont get me wrong it is not something that the Federal Government should fix cause that is not what it was made for.  But as a party that is something we should still look at. And question why are the poor becoming poorer. If anything sir or madam whichever you may call yourself by maybe you are the troll