Gay Patriot Header Image

Why American Gays Not Readily Receptive to Conservatism

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 8:36 pm - March 17, 2009.
Filed under: Gay America,Gay Politics,Identity Politics

When all too many Americans comes out as gay or lesbian, while they may at first continue to adhere to the political philosophy they held before acknowledging his sexuality, after a time socializing with their gay peers, they gradually comes to adopt the political views of those around him.  Adopting such liberal political views, it seems, has become a rite of passage for the openly-gay American.

I have come to believe that more than anything else, the desire to belong, social conformity, determines the political ideology of a good number of American gays.  That belief came to mind yesterday when I read posts by two smart conservative bloggers, Tom Maguire and Paul Mirengoff reflecting on Shelby Steele’s Wall Street Journal op-ed, Why the GOP Can’t Win With Minorities. Some of the arguments Steele made on the difficulty Republicans had in reaching out to ethnic minorities could apply to sexual minorities as well.

Unlike many gay activists, including leaders of Log Cabin, I don’t think the Republican Party need develop a gay-specific outreach plan.  I simply believe the party should abandon policies which discriminate against gay people and otherwise leave us alone to live our lives as we please.  The GOP should focus instead on unifying conservative principles.  Indeed, this belief is in line with contemporary American conservatism.  As Steele puts it:

Still, an appeal targeted just at minorities — reeking as it surely would of identity politics — is anathema to most conservatives. Can’t it be assumed, they would argue, that support of classic principles — individual freedom and equality under the law — constitutes support of minorities?

Eschewing identify politics, however, might not work in an era of group consciousness.  In coming out and developing a gay identity, all too many of us contend that identity involves a certain political consciousness,  wherein we demand certain gay-specific policies in exchange for our support.

That consciousness comes from the circumstances of the 1960s which Steele believes “opened a new formula for power in American politics: redemption. If you could at least seem to redeem America of its past sins, you could win enough moral authority to claim real political power.”  Translated into gay terms, this means, we need state action to redeem America’s “homophobic” past.

As we learn of that past, we start seeing ourselves not just as individuals whose emotional and sexual attraction to our gender, distinguish us from our peers, but as victims of “heterosexist” society.  Whereas according to Steele, “American minorities of color — especially blacks — are often born into grievance-focused identities,” we are acculturated into a similar identity.  As just as for racial minorities, “The idea of grievance will seem to define them in some eternal way, and it will link them atavistically to a community of loved ones.”

To those who see themselves as victims, “contemporary American conservatism” offers, “no mechanism to redeem America of its shames.”  Steele believes that liberalism, by contrast

may stand on decades of failed ideas, but it is failure in the name of American redemption. It remains competitive with — even ascendant over — conservatism because it addresses America’s moral accountability to its past with moral activism.

Lacking such moral activism on gay issues, American conservatism and the one partisan institution ostensibly dedicated to advancing its principles, will not find many adherents among those gays for whom this notion of a community of grievance has become the prevailing ideology.

I fear that the Republican Party may never reach those gays who see their sexual orientation as the defining aspect of their humanity rather than as just one attribute among many.  As I ponder Steele’s column (and encourage you to read it and do the same), I still have hope for my party. I don’t believe all gay people see themselves that way.  I do believe we can reach those gay men and lesbians who simply need reassurance that that the GOP is not beholden to those who would marginalize gay people.

To reach out to gays as well as to blacks, Hispanics and other minorities, Republican leaders must remind our fellow Americans that conservative principles work for all people regardless of any distinguishing characteristic which might differentiate us from the social norm.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Stephen H. Miller offers:

I agree with Steele about liberals getting a big advantage out of “redemptive politics,” with Obama the ultimate example, while minorities are taught that their prime identity is that of victim.

But the other issue is that while the GOP is not taking racist positions — and liberals are just lying when they say that opposing race-based preferential treatment and other special advantages is equal to racism — it is true that the GOP has advocated a federal amendment banning gay marriage, opposes letting gays serve openly in the military, opposes federal recognition of state-sanctioned civil unions and same-sex marriages, and is very publically aligned with religious conservatives who think homosexuality is (a) a sin and/or (b) a curable malady. Gays perceive the GOP as a threat, like the school bully.

Some of us think the socialist Democratic Party is a worse threat to liberty, but that’s a very hard case to make to gays who see Democrats mouthing nice things about us as they solicit our funds.

Share

84 Comments

  1. well just for the record, i identified as liberal before i began socializing with openly gay men. in fact, i still don’t socialize with many openly gay men (outside my boyfriend).

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 17, 2009 @ 8:57 pm - March 17, 2009

  2. I think the phenomenon that you describe — of newly-out gays and lesbians absorbing the political views of their elders or predecessors — is similar to what Bill Bishop describes in his book, The Big Sort. (It’s on my reading list, so I don’t want to misrepresent his views.)

    The argument, as I understand it, is that Americans have become more polarized in their political views and they move into communities where they feel more comfortable. (A look at a presidential electoral map, by county, will show the divide between red and blue most clearly, and with much more relevance, than a state-level, color-coded map.)

    Gay people are not alone in wanting to live among people who share their social and political views. Even if they do not choose to live in a traditional “ghetto” in a big city, they tend to interact most often with friends and acquaintances of like minds. This creates a feedback loop of self-reinforcement that is not unlike the blogosphere.

    There are a few of us, of course, who resist “the big sort.” I’m an example — a libertarian Republican living in an overwhelmingly liberal, Democratic town. But it’s impossible to deny that the sort has been occurring and that politicians and political activists will have to learn how to deal with it. (It does make it easier for elected legislators to gerrymander election districts.)

    I will say this: My reception as an openly gay Republican from other Republicans has been much more polite than the hostile reception I have received from many gay people when they find out my political views.

    Comment by Rick Sincere — March 17, 2009 @ 9:09 pm - March 17, 2009

  3. One of the issues with the Republican party is that it is the conservative party. Conservatives are upfront about being uncomfortable with the gay issue. LIberals simply lie and say they don’t care – but they do. As more conservatives get to know individual gays, many of them are open to the idea of civil unions. But the gay left has hijacked the issue and only complete marriage equity is acceptible, anyone else is called a homophobe.

    I don’t see the Republican party changing it’s stance on gay marriage, and at this point, simply coming out in favor of civil unions isn’t enough – since people are educated to believe – civil unions bad anti gay.

    Comment by Leah — March 17, 2009 @ 9:09 pm - March 17, 2009

  4. Well I think it is more that Gay people have come to view as the Republican party, due to is religious conversative wing, as hostile to their interests. The are more likely to get their rights through the Democratic party. Yes, the democratic party has not really come through with all of its promises but its not seen as hostile. Most don’t understand how you could vote in people who are more likely to vote against marriage, adoption so on.

    I know I will get responses about there are more important things than marriage or adoption but those are close to the heart issues. It may be selfish of people to vote that way but I find it hard to blame them for it.

    Comment by Darkeyedresolve — March 17, 2009 @ 9:11 pm - March 17, 2009

  5. i would also like to note that the fact that someone is gay and liberal doesn’t mean that he is liberal because he’s gay. let’s not forget the majority of liberals out there are, in fact, heterosexual. personally, i think i would be a liberal if i were straight. i suppose that is something none of us could know, though.

    i do think, however, that being gay has made me a more empathetic person, to be honest. and while i have no evidence to support this hypothesis, and am not trying to instigate an argument, i would guess that high levels of empathy lends itself to liberalism more so than conservatism.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 17, 2009 @ 9:13 pm - March 17, 2009

  6. I have come to believe that more than anything else, the desire to belong, social conformity, determines the political ideology of a good number of American gays.

    I think that’s the nut of it. Conservatism is primarily a philosophy of individuality. Insecure gays, on the other hand, seek acceptance from an undifferentiated ego mass that demands conformity.

    The other part is you have to be able to think and reason to accept conservatism. Liberalism is all about feelings. Thinking is harder than feeling.

    Comment by V the K — March 17, 2009 @ 9:27 pm - March 17, 2009

  7. It really irks Republicans/Conservatives to think that

    A. being gay is not a choice

    B. being liberal is

    and finally that

    C. Conservatism is a subjective rather than rational philosophy.

    Keep up the good work Dan. Your parody of critical thought is sure to win you a Pulitzer in comedy someday. :-)

    Signed,
    “Liberal Zombie-fied Irredeemable Immoral Victim” George

    Comment by george — March 17, 2009 @ 9:34 pm - March 17, 2009

  8. Oh I forgot to add “Insecure” on my signature.

    Signed,
    “Liberal Zombie-fied Irredeemable Immoral INSECURE Victim” George

    Comment by george — March 17, 2009 @ 9:36 pm - March 17, 2009

  9. v the k: i’m pretty sure that “conformity” is more a vice of the right. that’s why things like gender norms are so much more harshly enforced in conservative areas. or put another way, not fitting in is a much more painful scenario in a place like rural alabama than it is in berkeley or cambridge, wouldn’t you agree?

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 17, 2009 @ 9:36 pm - March 17, 2009

  10. The gay community is a cult which, like all cults, feeds on the insecure. Once it “love-bombs” a prospective client, it indoctrinates them into their mythology (Once-gay, always gay; gay history is a panoply of unrelieved persecution; drag is gay; and other lies). It forces them into behavior which binds them to the cult: multiple partners, drugs, rejecting parents, flouting social norms–so that a return to normal society is nearly impossible. If you reject the mythology, the cult rejects you, and tells you that you will go to hell without them.

    I have left behind two cults in my life–Christian fundamentalism and the gay community. They were both exactly the same as far as the way they functioned.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — March 17, 2009 @ 10:17 pm - March 17, 2009

  11. Rick Sincere writes an excellent, intelligent blog. First time I’ve been there, won’t be my last.

    Comment by Ignatius — March 17, 2009 @ 10:18 pm - March 17, 2009

  12. The gay community is a cult which, like all cults, feeds on the insecure. Once it “love-bombs” a prospective client, it indoctrinates them into their mythology (Once-gay, always gay; gay history is a panoply of unrelieved persecution; drag is gay; and other lies). It forces them into behavior which binds them to the cult: multiple partners, drugs, rejecting parents, flouting social norms–so that a return to normal society is nearly impossible. If you reject the mythology, the cult rejects you, and tells you that you will go to hell without them.

    I have left behind two cults in my life–fundamentalism and the gay community. They were both exactly the same as far as the way they functioned.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — March 17, 2009 @ 10:19 pm - March 17, 2009

  13. P. S. I just discovered the filter catches the words “Je—sus” and “Chris—tian.” Interesting. Why are these words so frightening?

    Comment by Ashpenaz — March 17, 2009 @ 10:20 pm - March 17, 2009

  14. ^^

    wow.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 17, 2009 @ 10:21 pm - March 17, 2009

  15. bob: conformity” is more a vice of the right.

    Huh? I talk to both liberals and conservatives and I find much more variety on the right. I realize that’s no more than anecdotal evidence but that’s what I hear.

    Among the few gay men I know, liberalism dominates. But when I ask these guys to rationalize their philosophy, I get little more than bluster and cliches about the religious right.

    Anecdote: a straight liberal at work offered the opinion that Barney Frank is flawed because “he’s gay and I’ve never known a gay that was well adjusted”. He just offered a blank stare when I corrected him (I think I’m fairly well adjusted). A couple of nearby conservatives had a good laugh.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — March 17, 2009 @ 10:26 pm - March 17, 2009

  16. i go back to my original example, socal. try people an effeminate male in alabama, and then try out cambridge, ma. get back to me on how that goes.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 17, 2009 @ 10:35 pm - March 17, 2009

  17. try *being

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 17, 2009 @ 10:39 pm - March 17, 2009

  18. there is also a lot more conformity in general in places like the deep south.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 17, 2009 @ 10:43 pm - March 17, 2009

  19. Bob – I’ve not spent much time in Alabama (and I’m not effeminate so probably wouldn’t attract much attention) but you may have a point.

    For what it’s worth, I see an awful lot of conformity here in Cali.

    It all depends on where you are. You might have an easier time of it in Birmingham, AL than you’d have in Compton (or Amsterdam for that matter). There have been gay bashing incidents in San Francisco. Idiots can be found anywhere.

    As an aside (my mention of Amsterdam)… you’d have to admit that gays are far more threatened by radical(?) Islam than by Focus on the Family. Most of the resistance to encroaching sharia comes from the right, not the left. The Euros are wearing themselves out kissing Islamofascists butts.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — March 17, 2009 @ 11:00 pm - March 17, 2009

  20. Is boob going on any actual experience, or just a leftist stereotype of how people in the South are expected to act? My experience, having spent time among both gays and southerners, is that an effeminate man among southerners faces much less hostility than a southern Christian does among gays.

    Also, I don’t think very many gays realize how much their buddies on the liberal left ridicule them. The show ‘Family Guy’ is produced by uber-leftists who often derail their comedy with extreme BDS… but consider any episode where homosexuality is raised, and you’ll find that the humor is based on gay stereotypes of effeminacy, promiscuity, and depraved sexual practices.

    Comment by V the K — March 17, 2009 @ 11:03 pm - March 17, 2009

  21. there is also a lot more conformity in general in places like the deep south.

    I wonder if you could offer some evidence. I grew up in a small town near Jackson, Mississippi, knew a few “effeminate” guys who had no problems growing up. One was the only male cheerleader in elementary school. Oh, and to really make your head explode, he was black as well.

    Maybe you have some hatred issues you need to deal with?

    As for why gays are liberal, it has to do with the fact that it doesn’t take any thought to participate it. Not to mention that you get to eschew self control, self respect, personal responsibility etc. You don’t have to think about it at all. It’s the easiest, most gutless thing you can do.

    Not only that, you don’t have to justify it. Just memorize a few bumper sticker slogans of hate and arrogance and you’re in the zone.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 17, 2009 @ 11:23 pm - March 17, 2009

  22. you’d have to admit that gays are far more threatened by radical(?) Islam than by Focus on the Family.

    Or any of the other fascist dictators that liberals love, for that matter.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 17, 2009 @ 11:25 pm - March 17, 2009

  23. Why are gays (American or otherwise) not receptive to conservatism? Because they reject the idea of moral discrimination. That is: they reject the idea that anything or anyone is authentically, morally better than anything or anyone else… except, of course, themselves for holding to that idea.

    In my left-liberal days, I was friends (I thought) with a leftist gay who expressed it this way: “I’m tolerant of everything except intolerance.” It took me years to understand that he was a deeply hateful person, who had really meant “I cannot tolerate any moral discrimination, except my own.”

    So, why that? Causes may include:
    - The left-wing heritage of the pro-gay movement.
    - The fact that our society/culture doesn’t teach moral discrimination to anyone, anymore.
    - Choice. Many gays are on an erotic adventure and want to indulge their desires. Moral non-discrimination is required for that.

    The last one (choice) is, of course, the most important or decisive; as always.

    What are the consequences of rejecting moral discrimination? To keep it up, the person must become anti-moral: hateful of anything that smacks of a process of moral judgment (except, again, their own). Evan Sayet has a new speech that was up on Ace today, that explains the rest of the consequences after that:
    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/284342.php

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 18, 2009 @ 12:38 am - March 18, 2009

  24. I hate to say something un-deep and un-thoughtful and almost off-topic, but I must, or I’ll never get to sleep tonight.

    It’s MICHAEL Steele who’s the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, not Shelby (though I’m sure Shelby’s flattered at the thought).

    Comment by polly — March 18, 2009 @ 1:08 am - March 18, 2009

  25. socal,

    yeah, compton would be a pretty bad place for an effeminate guy too. don’t forget though that, generally speaking, the african american community is one of the most socially conservative groups out there. voting D doesn’t make you liberal, fyi.

    and you’re right that islamo-fascism (or whatever you want to call it) is more hostile toward gays than christianity. the thing is, most ppl in our country are christian. the fundie muslims also pretty much hate anyone and everything that isn’t devout muslim; meanwhile, the fundie christians seem to focus an inordinate amount of time on bashing gays.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 18, 2009 @ 6:36 am - March 18, 2009

  26. please release me from the filters, GPW.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 18, 2009 @ 6:37 am - March 18, 2009

  27. or put another way, not fitting in is a much more painful scenario in a place like rural alabama than it is in berkeley or cambridge, wouldn’t you agree?

    Having experienced both, I have to disagree. Alabama (or Mississippi in my case) will be curious and give you a good natured ribbing, but they won’t call you a foul Nazi warmonger as far as I’ve experienced. Besides, your analogy isn’t really cogent:

    an effeminate male in alabama, and then try out cambridge, ma.

    Try being a pro-life Evangelical in Cambridge.

    Comment by DoDoGuRu — March 18, 2009 @ 7:02 am - March 18, 2009

  28. I note that several who post here are fans of AoSHQ, one of the most conservative weblogs on the internet. Let me ask, have any of you been banned from that blog for being gay?

    Now let me ask, has anyone here been banned from a leftygay blog for expressing conservative viewpoints?

    Comment by V the K — March 18, 2009 @ 8:00 am - March 18, 2009

  29. I don’t think gays are predisposed to be against conservatism, I think it has to do more with the Republican party. Gays would obviously benefit from the fiscal policies of conservatism, but they don’t benefit social from the Republican Party. I think it is important to seperate the two from one another in the discussion.

    Comment by Darkeyedresolve — March 18, 2009 @ 9:42 am - March 18, 2009

  30. A. It appears that many gays have a fight with religion. Particularly a religion that deals with sins and sinners.

    B. It appears that many gays have a belief that the deep South is loaded with KKK types looking to thrash and hang them.

    C. It appears that many gays place a strong emphasis on feelings and using government to enforce protection of their feelings.

    D. Liberals and Democrats play to all of the above.

    E. The Republican Party is not going to turn on its religious base, or start witch hunts in the deep South to ferret out bigots against blacks, gays, women, Jews, illegal aliens, etc. Nor is the Republican Party ever going to enter the game to win over “victim” groups by promising to deal out affirmative action goodies and perks based on their loyalty.

    Gays will have to find conservatism on their own. Gays that feel persecuted are most likely to join the “pity” party (the Democrats) that plays to their persecution syndrome.

    From the race perspective, being of mixed race was a real problem in the deep South and in many churches. I would be lying to say it has vanished, but the world of 2009 is as far away from the world of 1969 as 1969 was from the world of 1799.

    Similarly, gays in 2009 who are still operating on the world of the 1970′s are mired in the past. Our hospital has a number of gay employees. Frankly, when we run into a gay employee problem, it is usually centered around what the gay doesn’t find comfortable. To be blunt, it the gay looking for persecution and thinking he has found it. It is always a messy situation. Sure, we have an occasional patient that is an ass, but we don’t pick and choose our patients. We do pick and choose our employees. So if a gay employee clutters up the job site with some gay agenda, he is most likely on the way out. I KNOW that someone is now going to say that we make our gay employees sit on the back of the bus. That is how liberals read. They find what they want to blow out of all proportion and then go ballistic. I will sit back and await the fallout.

    Comment by heliotrope — March 18, 2009 @ 10:54 am - March 18, 2009

  31. You know why I’m happy to be a conservative? Because this is what the voices of the left sound like.

    Comment by V the K — March 18, 2009 @ 11:09 am - March 18, 2009

  32. I KNOW that someone is now going to say that we make our gay employees sit on the back of the bus.

    Agreed, heliotrope. However, the reason it’s done so often is because the left refuses to admit that a minority member has engaged in bad behavior or done something worthy of criticism. Again, to the school analogy, if the student fails, it’s the test’s fault, regardless of the fact that the student was out drinking until 4 AM and didn’t study. Society exists to reinforce and endorse the self-gratification of the individual; anything else is labeled as “forcing conformity”.

    Once you realize that liberalism at its core is insisting that everything that has come before it is fatally flawed and should be eliminated, their attitudes make much more sense. They see conservatives as reactionary and resistant to change; it is more realistic to say that conservatives are less inclined to throw out things that are working without a good reason.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 18, 2009 @ 11:46 am - March 18, 2009

  33. #29 V the K

    Wow! What a neat production!

    Comment by heliotrope — March 18, 2009 @ 11:54 am - March 18, 2009

  34. While our primary home is New Orleans, we also have homes in rural southern Mississippi and Mykonos Greece. Our experiences as a gay male couple are largely the same in all three places, but in Miss. our neighbors are warm, friendly and look after our home when we’re away. The local Baptist preacher, “Brother Scott” often stops in to visit when we are there. At first he thought we were brothers, but he has since learned otherwise and still visits. With our neighbors, we don’t discuss being gay, nor feel the need to. We do talk about family, land prices, taxes, timber values, etc. We’ve never experienced any hostility, which often surprises and occasionally disappoints some of our liberal friends. I’ve come to believe in treating others respectfully, you will be treated likewise. And wanting people with whom you associate to be comfortable is simply good manners. As simplistic as this may sound, I truly believe being a productive member of the community and a good neighbor can change more hearts and minds of people currently ill disposed toward gays and lesbians, than living in a “gay ghetto” and marching in parades.

    BTW, there seems to be a lot of David’s around here so I will be known as David in N.O.

    Comment by David in N.O. — March 18, 2009 @ 12:50 pm - March 18, 2009

  35. Some forms of homosexual behavior are sin. I would argue that multiple partners, open relationships, serial monogamy, exploiting youth, meth addiction, and knowingly spreading AIDS are all sin. Why can we name those behaviors as sin and work to stop them?

    Those behaviors don’t make homosexuality a sin any more than adultery and pedophilia make heterosexuality a sin. But some behaviors, gay or straight, are sin.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — March 18, 2009 @ 1:23 pm - March 18, 2009

  36. Why can’t we name those behaviors as sin and work to stop them?

    Because under gay logic, morality = oppression.

    Why is NAMBLA banned from Pride Parades? Is it because teh gheys find them morally appalling, or are they just bad PR?

    Is bestiality illegal for any reason other than the fact that most people find it icky? You can’t argue consent, because cows and chickens don’t consent to being chopped up and eaten, either. It makes it awkward for people who argue that morality can’t be legislated to admit that some things can be made illegal if enough people find them icky enough.

    Comment by V the K — March 18, 2009 @ 1:38 pm - March 18, 2009

  37. ILoveCapitalism: If you think that liberals “reject the idea of moral discrimination,” try telling a liberal that you’re a hunter, and see what reaction you get. Liberals do make moral judgments, just not the same ones you make.

    It’s true that some liberals (not all) like to pretend that they don’t make moral judgments. They’re deceiving themselves.

    Comment by Rob — March 18, 2009 @ 2:09 pm - March 18, 2009

  38. Rob, fair point, and that goes to lefties’ hypocrisy.

    As I noted, my leftie companion had said the words “I’m tolerant of everything except intolerance”… and meant something more like, “I cannot tolerate anyone’s moral discrimination, except mine and others agreeing with mine”.

    An interesting question is, how do non-lefties behave differently? Here are the differences I can come up with:

    1) Not trying to brag on our supposed universal tolerance. Explicitly accepting moral discrimination/judgment as a part of life, sometimes a necessary part.
    2) More tolerance of moral disagreement. Not perfect tolerance: a disagreement is, after all, a disagreement. But, for example, if someone tells me I’m wrong morally, I don’t freak out. I consider whether they’re right or not. If they’re right, I say “Fine, you’re right”. If they’re wrong, I say “I disagree”. A hard-core left-liberal, in my experience, basically goes apeshit if someone tries to them him he’s wrong morally.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 18, 2009 @ 2:30 pm - March 18, 2009

  39. Wow, the GP comment filter allows “apeshit”, “shitake” and other such words.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 18, 2009 @ 2:31 pm - March 18, 2009

  40. #34: This from someone who puts out soft porn every Thursday?

    I rejected leftism AFTER I came out (which was in 1998) because I only saw the problems inherent in it after 9/11. That its economic ideals didn’t pull America out of the Great Depression, and it didn’t bring prosperity to Russia, Cuba, China, Vietnam, or North Korea. They refused to declare war on an evil belief system (that is at odds with many of the values they claim to have) because George W. Bush declared that war. Radical Islam and Radical Kristanity are two sides of the same coin, but both the left and right refuse to admit that.

    I don’t believe in tolerance. I never did, and I never will. It is a patronizing conceit designed to enforce artificial civility towards immoral and amoral belief systems. Radical religious bigots should never be tolerated, whether they’re blowing up innocent people in Tel Aviv or invalidating marriage licenses in West Hollywood. If these are your beliefs, then they are evil. Rick Warren and Osama Bin Laden are brothers in arms where gays (and Jews) are concerned, just like Hitler, Stalin and the “Democratic” Party were/are brothers in arms regarding the role of government in the economy and the everyday lives of individuals. And if you goyim don’t like it, then too bad.

    And you lefties need to stop calling yourself “liberal.” If you support unchecked expansion of government, you are not a liberal. You are a socialist. Obama is not a liberal. He is as illiberal as they get.

    Comment by Attmay, a proud heterophobe — March 18, 2009 @ 3:32 pm - March 18, 2009

  41. Yeah, well, I just don’t see any moral equivalence between brutally murdering innocent people and refusing to validate non-traditional domestic arrangements via a marriage license*, so, sure, I guess my moral compass must be pretty whacked.

    Comment by V the K — March 18, 2009 @ 3:47 pm - March 18, 2009

  42. Radical Islam and Radical Kristanity

    I think I missed something, the last eight years; kindly point me to (or provide examples and citations on) these “radical Christians” who are somehow, supposedly, allegedly, fully as bloodthirsty, nihilistic and evil as the radical Islamists have been proven to be.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 18, 2009 @ 4:42 pm - March 18, 2009

  43. I agree with Steele about liberals getting a big advantage out of “redemptive politics,” with Obama the ultimate example, while minorities are taught that their prime identity is that of victim.

    But the other issue is that while the GOP is not taking racist positions — and liberals are just lying when they say that opposing race-based preferential treatment and other special advantages is equal to racism — it is true that the GOP has advocated a federal amendment banning gay marriage, opposes letting gays serve openly in the military, opposes federal recognition of state-sanctioned civil unions and same-sex marriages, and is very publically aligned with religious conservatives who think homosexuality is (a) a sin and/or (b) a curable malady. Gays perceive the GOP as a threat, like the school bully.

    Some of us think the socialist Democratic Party is a worse threat to liberty, but that’s a very hard case to make to gays who see Democrats mouthing nice things about us as they solicit our funds.

    Comment by Stephen H Miller — March 18, 2009 @ 5:06 pm - March 18, 2009

  44. I simply believe the party should abandon policies which discriminate against gay people and otherwise leave us alone to live our lives as we please.

    Duh. That would be nice. But I won’t hold my breath.

    Comment by Erik — March 18, 2009 @ 5:11 pm - March 18, 2009

  45. I think Shelby Steele missed an important fact as to why the majority of blacks reject conservativism and that is the MSM and white liberals. The former emphasized the historic nature of Obama´s nomination and his election. How about in the 2000? Wasn´t the appointment of General Colin Powell as Secretary of State, as the first African American appointed to that post historical?. Wasn´t it historical that Condi Rice headed the National Secuirity Agency? When she succeeded Colin Powell as Secretary of State, wasn´t it historical as the first African American woman appointed to the post? In 2000 there were more minoities in Goerge Bush´s cabinet that any previous president of either party. But where was the MSM to to point out that historical fact.

    The Republican Party is becoming more receptive to gays at least in California. In 1979 when I joined the nascent Log Cabin Club, we were not popular. It helped when in November of that year State Central Committee Chairmen, Tirso Del Junco and County Central Committe Chairman, Bill Orozco came as guest speakers. They encouraged us to get involved, I, among several others, ran for a seat on the County Central Committee in 1980 and I was one of two to be elected. It surprised me when former police Ed Davis upon being elected to the State Assembly wanted an invitation to the Log Cabin Club and a former enemy of the the gay community became a friend. The atmosphere in the A.D committee was quietly hostile. After a hiatus, I was elected again in 1992 and found the found the atmosphere more cordial. The committee knew that I was gay. Most importantly, they saw me as a fellow conservative.

    The real problem with white heterosexual liberals is either a conscious or subconscious guilt feeling so they pander to minorities, racial and sexual orientation. A perfect example is in the movie ¨Spanglish,¨which is a topic in another post, when Flor went to apply for the job, how the lady of the house fawned all over Flor like she wanted to adopt her into the family. Some white liberals are masochistic, they have a desire to be punished, which explains the ¨hate America¨syndrome.

    Comment by Roberto — March 18, 2009 @ 5:34 pm - March 18, 2009

  46. yeah, socal, compton would be a pretty bad place for an effeminate guy too. don’t forget though that, generally speaking, the african american community is one of the most socially conservative groups out there. voting D doesn’t make you liberal, fyi.

    and you’re right that islamo-f_scism (or whatever you want to call it) is more hostile toward gays than christianity. the thing is, most ppl in our country are christian. the fundie muslims also pretty much hate anyone and everything that isn’t devout muslim; meanwhile, the fundie christians seem to focus an inordinate amount of time on bashing gays.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 18, 2009 @ 6:09 pm - March 18, 2009

  47. why am i being filtered? my comment wasn’t offensive.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 18, 2009 @ 6:10 pm - March 18, 2009

  48. We all get filtered, boob… but you’re the only one who whines about it.

    Comment by V the K — March 18, 2009 @ 6:29 pm - March 18, 2009

  49. #41: Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

    But the other issue is that while the GOP is not taking racist positions — and liberals are just lying when they say that opposing race-based preferential treatment and other special advantages is equal to racism — it is true that the GOP has advocated a federal amendment banning gay marriage, opposes letting gays serve openly in the military, opposes federal recognition of state-sanctioned civil unions and same-sex marriages, and is very publically aligned with religious conservatives who think homosexuality is (a) a sin and/or (b) a curable malady.

    The reason they do this? It’s because they were taught to do that by the Kristian bible. Any resemblance between Kristianity and the teachings of Jesus is purely coincidental.

    And Steele’s article suggests that perhaps the GOP should consider pandering to the homophobic prejudices of many blacks and hispanics. They tried that, it didn’t take them away from their loyalty to The One. A majority of blacks in CA voted for Prop 8. but they voted for Obamussolini, too because they are fiscally fascist, as he is. Bigotry against gays is not a strong enough foundation on which to build a party. The “Democratic” party stands for something: surrender, socialism, and pandering to the radical Islamic menace. They are bad and destructive ideas but they are still a coherent philosophy (Communism, Fascism, and Nazism were also coherent, though pure evil). What does the GOP have? Bash gays and pay lip service to past glory days when they did have principles.

    Blacks were overwhelmingly Republican in the period when Democrats were the party of Jim Crow and the KKK. Drop the gay-bashing and perhaps the GOP can see gay presidential voting percentages rise beyond 27%. That is, if you stand for anything other than heterosexual supremacy. You could show how putting limits on government involvement in business helps everybody of every race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

    #39: As they say in Mexico, caca del caballo. All monogamous marriage is “non-traditional,” as is interracial marriage. But anything goes as long as it’s male-female, apparently. Christian bigotry is sneakier than Muslim bigotry, but it’s still bigotry. The sneaky part is how it disguises itself as “love.” If you consider me a sinner because of something I was born with and did not choose and cannot change even if I wanted to, don’t you dare lie to me and claim you “love” me. Don’t continue to patronize gays in that fashion. There has been no implosion of society in NY and MA caused by gay marriage. Why don’t you goy bigots (and Orthodox Jewish ones, too, for that matter) just say what you really think. Just don’t be surprised if what your people do unto gays is done unto you.

    I’ll do as Jesus said and love my enemies. I will love them to death.

    Comment by Attmay — March 18, 2009 @ 7:08 pm - March 18, 2009

  50. Now now, V… if bob were to suddenly ‘get it’ that nobody is out to get him, it might deflate his paranoid sense of importance wound his liberal “self esteem”. And we wouldn’t want to liberate his mind hurt his feelings like that.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 18, 2009 @ 7:31 pm - March 18, 2009

  51. i’m pretty sure i’m not the only one to complain about the filters, v the k.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 18, 2009 @ 8:27 pm - March 18, 2009

  52. No, you’re the only one to take it personally.

    And anything you can site in your C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n bashing, besides your feelings of self persecution?

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 18, 2009 @ 9:38 pm - March 18, 2009

  53. hmm..where exactly did i take it personally? i remember expressing frustration…taking it personally? not so much.

    and i have no idea what you’re rambling on about w/ the christian bashing.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 18, 2009 @ 10:04 pm - March 18, 2009

  54. “Try being a pro-life Evangelical in Cambridge.”

    i’m not condoning discrimination in either case, but your example isn’t sound. the difference is that being pro-life is a choice and a political philosophy, as is being evangelical (or any other religion). there is a difference btwn disagreeing with someone’s point of view and disagreeing with someone’s innate nature.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 18, 2009 @ 10:09 pm - March 18, 2009

  55. While our primary home is New Orleans, we also have homes in rural southern Mississippi and Mykonos Greece.

    Cool! Need a valet?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 19, 2009 @ 1:37 am - March 19, 2009

  56. Crap!

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 19, 2009 @ 1:38 am - March 19, 2009

  57. The issue isn’t the basis on which you disagree with people, it’s how you treat people you disagree with. C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n evangelicals know how to “hate the sin, but love the sinner.”

    For the left, on the other hand, “the personal is political.” Disagreement with the leftist agenda is labeled as “hate speech.” And it is acceptable to mock, ridicule, harass and physically assault those who disagree with you, as we see whenever a conservative speaker visits, say, Cambridge, or when anti-Prop 8 protesters vandalize, threaten, and harass those who supported it.

    Comment by V the K — March 19, 2009 @ 6:34 am - March 19, 2009

  58. v the k: is your ass sore from pulling all of that out of it?

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 6:39 am - March 19, 2009

  59. The harassment of Prop 8 supporters is well-documented, and I think Larry Summers can testify how open-minded the gang up in Cambridge is. On the other hand, I haven’t seen any Prop 8 supporters calling anyone a “disgusting faggot,” although if I ever met Barney Frank in person, I might be tempted. (Although “disgusting socialist hypocrite” would be more likely.)

    Unless, of course, one plays the left-wing cutesy-poo “code-word” game where, “I support retaining the traditional definition of marriage” is secret code for “I hate fags.”

    Comment by V the K — March 19, 2009 @ 10:41 am - March 19, 2009

  60. V, excellent points as always.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2009 @ 10:56 am - March 19, 2009

  61. The contrast with the little-letter-person’s flailing is pretty stark, isn’t it?

    Comment by V the K — March 19, 2009 @ 11:10 am - March 19, 2009

  62. Yeah V: in fact, I have to wonder what it’s like to live with such negative thoughts all the time, as the lowercase-clan seems to… to virtually never have any type of comment to make except expressions of negativity and disdain, and most of those ‘clueless’ in terms of what’s actually going on. I wonder that about certain other GP commentors, not just the lower-case clan. But that’s a story for another time.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2009 @ 3:01 pm - March 19, 2009

  63. hmm, ILC, perhaps my comments on this blog are mostly negative because i’m a liberal reading a conservative blog. how many non-critical things would you have to say reading daily kos?

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 6:42 pm - March 19, 2009

  64. actually, v the k, what you said was:
    “Disagreement with the leftist agenda is labeled as “hate speech.” ”

    i was merely pointing out that we on the left don’t consider your relentless support for unrestricted markets and repeated calls for individual responsibility, for example, as “hate speech”. there are, however, certain things that are, in fact, hateful rhetoric, such as the example i gave.

    i would also consider the statement that allowing gay marriage would result in the end of the world to be a bit beyond the pale. http://minnesotaindependent.com/29356/faith-leaders-ban-gay-marriage-in-minnesota-or-the-world-could-end

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 6:47 pm - March 19, 2009

  65. how many non-critical things would you have to say reading daily kos?

    I wouldn’t behave like you do here, that’s for damn sure.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2009 @ 7:27 pm - March 19, 2009

  66. yes, because you’re such a gentleman here, ILC.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 8:04 pm - March 19, 2009

  67. how many non-critical things would you have to say reading daily kos?

    Considering anyone who says anything critical is instantly banned from DailyKos, I probably wouldn’t last long enough to find out.

    “If everyone is a gay, this world will cease to exist in 10 years,” said Ikram ul-Huq, the imam and religious director of the Muslim Community Center of Bloomington.

    Guess you haven’t gotten the memo. Muslim homophobia must be tolerated in the name of multiculturalism.

    Comment by V the K — March 19, 2009 @ 8:04 pm - March 19, 2009

  68. um, no. muslim homophobia is every bit as ugly and wrong as christian (or jewish, or whatever) homophobia.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 8:31 pm - March 19, 2009

  69. not so much, v the k. homophobia from any religion is wrong.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 8:31 pm - March 19, 2009

  70. yes, because you’re such a gentleman here, ILC.

    Just as I said: I have to wonder what it’s like to live with such negative thoughts all the time, as the lowercase-clan seems to… to virtually never have any type of comment to make except expressions of negativity and disdain, and most of those ‘clueless’ in terms of what’s actually going on.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2009 @ 9:48 pm - March 19, 2009

  71. really, ilc, the faux outrage is a bit tiring.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 10:24 pm - March 19, 2009

  72. No outrage. My bob, you’re funny. Yet again: I have to wonder what it’s like to live with such negative thoughts as yours all the time… to virtually never have any type of comment to make except expressions of negativity and disdain, and most of those ‘clueless’ in terms of what’s actually going on. You know what I might mean by ‘clueless’? Just look at the fact that you’re imagining outrage on my part, heh ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 20, 2009 @ 2:27 am - March 20, 2009

  73. In fact, let me be as explicit as possible… because who knows, bob: maybe, just maybe, this will be the time the penny drops and you finally have a clue… I’m pitying you here.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 20, 2009 @ 2:33 am - March 20, 2009

  74. *sigh* and again bob makes his comic routine. Hate Speech = words that hurt bob’s feelings.

    We lost the war for the hearts and minds when freedom of speech became ‘freedom to not have to listen’

    As to bob’s attempts at humour. Let me trot out a movie quote. “You make me laugh. But only ’cause I think you’re kinda pathetic.”

    Comment by The Livewire — March 20, 2009 @ 7:28 am - March 20, 2009

  75. #59: I guess 42 years is long enough to call it “traditional marriage”.

    Comment by Attmay — March 20, 2009 @ 9:31 am - March 20, 2009

  76. muslim homophobia is every bit as ugly and wrong as ——–(or jewish, or whatever) homophobia.

    You might want to share this infobit with your buddies in ‘Queers for Palestine.’

    Comment by V the K — March 20, 2009 @ 10:07 am - March 20, 2009

  77. I wonder if anybody agrees with my observation in #45 that it is the pandering by white liberals that attracts gays and minorites to the Democrats.

    Comment by Roberto — March 20, 2009 @ 10:57 am - March 20, 2009

  78. The real problem with white heterosexual liberals is either a conscious or subconscious guilt feeling… Some white liberals are masochistic, they have a desire to be punished, which explains the ¨hate America¨syndrome.

    But it’s a racket. Their feeling of moral inferiority paradoxically gives them a feeling of moral superiority.

    I think your points are valid, Roberto, and I’m going to re-visit what I said at #23 and try to integrate the two. Liberals feel guilty (or morally inferior). They want to feel virtuous (or morally superior). And they want it fast. They don’t want to work at, i.e., to actually do the difficult things that society traditionally recognizes as morally superior. They want a shortcut.

    Their shortcut is this: They reject the very concept of moral superiority, i.e., the very idea that anything can be authentically, morally better than anything else… and then interpret their rejection of the concept as proof of their moral superiority. Yes, it’s crazy. Yes, it’s a self-contradiction, a position of zero integrity. They don’t care about that; or even worse, they take the fact that you and I don’t reject such obvious contradictions as further proof of how smart and wise and moral *they* are.

    Their moral and psychological stance is like this: “My friends and I understand how truly rotten we are, how rotten everybody is, and how rotten America is. Conservatives can’t see it; we do. We grant that America’s vicious enemies are in the right. Therefore, we’re better.”

    Evan Sayet (in the speech I mentioned earlier: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/284342.php) puts it like this. Modern liberals reject the idea of noticing that A is better than B as “discrimination”. The very idea that that hard work is morally and practically better than stealing; that abstinence is morally and practically better than promiscuity; that Israel and/or America are morally and practically better than al Qaeda; is “discriminatory”. They are determined to never discriminate. And that means nothing can ever be admitted to being authentically better than anything else. And that means that the better position and results enjoyed by America, by Israel, by people who work, etc. must be due to cheating. It must be undeserved, it must have been ‘stolen’ from someone else, it must be unfair, it must mask – or indeed be prima facie evidence of – deep corruption and viciousness.

    Here’s what I’m adding to that insight: Modern liberals feel pride in having such thoughts. It is the source, again, of their own (contradictory, Orwellian) feelings of moral superiority. They indulge exaggerated feelings of guilt, and exaggerated hatred of the country and institutions and people that made their very existence possilbe – as proof of their moral superiority.

    I hope I’m not making it too complicated. I think the complications – that is, the crazy contradictions – are in liberalism, and that I’m only trying to trace them.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 20, 2009 @ 8:04 pm - March 20, 2009

  79. Roberto, I have one for you – but it’s filtered. Stay tuned.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 20, 2009 @ 8:05 pm - March 20, 2009

  80. sorry, typo, “…they take the fact that you and I don’t *accept* (or do reject) such obvious contradictions as further proof of…”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 20, 2009 @ 10:39 pm - March 20, 2009

  81. ILC

    This is where the grand contradiction or hypocrisy comes in. If you don´t agree with them they react with hostility, e.g. Bush bashing (but heaven forbid if you are critical of the anointed one) Hate America but embrace radical terrorists and dictators like Hamas, Ahmadjinedad, Hugo Chavez, and Los Hermanos Castro Castro.

    Comment by Roberto — March 21, 2009 @ 10:36 am - March 21, 2009

  82. Why in the world do you people place so much stock in your political affiliation? Branding yourself either conservative or liberal and is all part of silly social conforming, which in general is sheep-like and silly.

    I personally tend to shy away from both distinctions because on the far end of either side you get the sort of crap that I’ve been reading in this and in the replies to this post. It’s all just holier-than-thou bickering about how terrible people who don’t agree with you are. On both sides. Honestly, try tucking your agenda in a drawer some day and living a little. And I don’t mean by abandoning all your morals and beliefs, and running out and getting smashed, having tons of promiscuous sex, and slandering the government like you all seem to think any gay who isn’t a conservative Republican does. Just spend a day or two not worrying so much about it.

    Seriously.

    Comment by Maryxus — April 4, 2009 @ 12:17 am - April 4, 2009

  83. Also, most people on either the Conservative Republican or Liberal Democrat side agree that Bush was a terrible president. It’s less a matter political affiliation and more a matter of not living with your head shoved up your ass.

    Comment by Maryxus — April 4, 2009 @ 12:20 am - April 4, 2009

  84. Wow, this site is a breath of fresh air. I don’t know what I am, exactly–still liberal on some issues but moving toward the center, I suppose. I don’t care for the religious right, but I’m not sure it’s as big of a threat the community makes it out to be–more like a useful bogeyman that can be trotted out for any and all purposes. I do not believe that gay marriage is the most pressing human rights issue in our world either, although I’m not against it per se. As for the whole issue of the South being oppressive, I’m sure if you conduct yourself in a toned-down, respectful manner and don’t walk around with a chip on your shoulder you won’t have too many problems. Quite frankly I feel more oppressed by the community than I do by conservatives. Strident attention-seekers who want to tell everyone else how to be gay, how to act, how dress, what types of people and bodies you’re supposed to be attracted to!

    Comment by SeekingTheTruth — April 7, 2009 @ 11:45 am - April 7, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.