Conservative Notion of Gay Rights Essentially Nonpolitical
In his essay “The Hubris of Politics,” (which I discovered to my delight in his new book The Politics of Freedom: Taking on the Left, the Right, and Threats to Our Liberties), my friend David Boaz talks about the problem of a Sunday paper asking students to write to a Cabinet member to address a pressing social problem:
. . . the real mistake here is thinking that all problems have a political solution. In fact, most of the social problems that people have faced throughout history have been ameliorated or solved through the voluntary workings of civil society and the market process. We didn’t relieve ourselves of the burden of backbreaking labor, or bring the world closer together through a series of transportation revolutions, by passing laws; we worked, saved, invested, and created economic progress.
in noting how the “voluntary workings of civil society and the market process” have helped ameliorate social problems, David offers (though I’m sure he’d disagree with the adjective I use) a good synopsis of a conservative approach to “gay rights” (which Bruce and I have blogged about).
While gay activists have been wrangling whether to include transgender individuals in the Employmen Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), a growing number of corporations has been adopting nondiscrimination policies and offering benefits to same-sex domestic partners of their employees. With discrimination against gay people on the wane in the private sector, such legislation is becoming a solution without a problem.
As David might put it, the market process has ameliorated whatever problem there was. With gay people becoming increasingly visible in contemporary society, corporations understand that is makes good business sense to treat us fairly. Some might say that this is a crass policy designed to increase profits, but the fact remains that gay people enjoy better treatment in the private sector than they do in most (supposedly more noble) governmental agencies.
Even the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) acknowledges this, writing in its most recent State of the Workplace:
Today, nearly 90 percent of the Fortune 500-ranked corporations include workplace protections based on sexual orientation, going beyond the patchwork of states and localities that ban such discrimination.
A conservative approach would combine a Burkean regard to the circumstances of the situation with a libertarian belief that the private sector can more readily address social change than can government at its various levels.
In this case, the circumstances of the situations show the merits of a libertarian approach. Even in the Bush era, the social situation has been improving for gay Americans, with greater social acceptance and more private organizations reaching out to gay and lesbian employees and clients.
We don’t need government programs to address the social challenges of gay men and lesbians living increasingly openly in American society. We just need the government to get out of the way and stop preventing institutions and individuals from addressing their concerns in their own way.
That should be the heart of any gay conservative agenda. And not some bland appeals to the socialist-sounding idea of equality. It’s freedom Americans conservatives are after and have been at least since we adopted Barry Goldwater as our standard bearer.
The more we turn to government, the less we do to solve our own problems and the more power we cede to the state, according us less freedom to respond responsibly to social change.
10 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
This speaks to the core principle of conservatism. Societal differences are worked out at the local level in the public square. To use the force of government to compel a solution is as radical as to submit to the threat of destruction by the KKK or other form of mob rule.
Comment by heliotrope — May 11, 2008 @ 5:16 pm - May 11, 2008
while it certainly is admirable when companies choose equality either because they find it financially beneficial or truly support equality I feel no company should be allowed to discriminate. We need the federal government to intervene to make sure this goes into effect otherwise there are companies who will never change. I see your point though and it is a valid one through a gay conservatives lens.
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
Comment by queerunity — May 11, 2008 @ 6:07 pm - May 11, 2008
If there isn’t really that big of a problem, liberals will hyperinflate it to make you believe that disaster is imminent just so we will give them the absolute, totalitarian rule they crave. For example:
Race: We’re supposed to believe that we’re all racist bigots and every white person is the equivalent of Ross Barnett (D, MS) and George Wallace (D, AL).
Economy: Financial ruin is right around the corner and Americans are already standing in soup lines.
War: American soldiers are being slaughtered wholesale and bodies are stacking up like cord wood. Thus, we should tuck tail and run away immediately. Worse than that, we’re hurting the feelings of Islamo “freedom fighters”.
Oil: The oil companies make too much money, so it’s up to the federal government to take that money away from them. Nevermind that that won’t do a damn thing to bring the gas prices down or that the oil companies don’t pass on the costs that they should.
“Gay Rights”: Every straight person is a bigoted homophobe and gays are cowering in the closet because of it. Nevermind the anti-gay legislation and anti-marriage positions of liberals.
I could go on and on, but this is what we’re supposed to believe FACTS BE DAMNED!!!
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 12, 2008 @ 12:16 am - May 12, 2008
Queer Unity, just because people feel corporations shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate doesn’t mean we should deprive them of the freedom to do so, nor deprive other companies the competitive edge they would gain by not discriminating.
As to your comment about companies choosing equality, I have no idea what you mean as you merely echo the jargon of all gay organizations, including alas Log Cabin. Does equality in the corporate sphere mean that an employer has to treat each employee equally no matter what his talents or his work ethic?
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 12, 2008 @ 1:29 am - May 12, 2008
Individuality’s fine as long as we all do it together. - Maj. Frank Burns
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 12, 2008 @ 5:28 am - May 12, 2008
Queer Unity clearly draws the divide between liberals and conservatives:
The force of government should be used to punish people who are not
“thinking correctly.”
Gay bars must have a quota of straight employees. In fact, they must employ a few Bible thumpers who will inform the customers of the evils of drink and sodomy.
Comment by heliotrope — May 12, 2008 @ 9:07 am - May 12, 2008
The worship of Unity - especially, State-enforced Unity - is the very soul and essence of fascism.
“We need the federal government to intervene to make sure this goes into effect otherwise there are companies who will never change” - That could have been said by Hitler or Mussolini. Or Castro, Chavez, Saddam: any of the national-socialists.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 12, 2008 @ 1:31 pm - May 12, 2008
(I mean: If they weren’t all people who happen to prefer killing or imprisoning gays. My points are (1) government power is a sword that can all be easily turned against you, and (2) American liberals, as worhippers of “unity” and government power, have far more in common with fascists than they ordinarily realize.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 12, 2008 @ 1:41 pm - May 12, 2008
Right on, heliotrope.
What queers like queerunity need is to be forced to follow their own rules.
Best way I can think of doing so: Fred Phelps goes to a city where there is a “nondiscrimination” ordinance and files a lawsuit demanding that a gay-owned and operated business make picketing signs for him.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2008 @ 5:32 pm - May 12, 2008
Would you support removing all the protections for other groups {religion, marital status, etc, etc, etc} in the laws?
If not, then that would make you an anti gay hypocrite.
Comment by Ron P — May 20, 2008 @ 5:46 am - May 20, 2008