Gay Patriot Header Image

On the Exclusion of Gay Conservatives from Gay Marriage Confabs

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:10 pm - April 3, 2009.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage,Gay Politics

Perhaps one of the reasons gay activists prefer using the courts to advance their agenda is that it prevents them from having to consider conservative arguments and from appealing to conservative constituencies.  Instead of working to build a consensus on gay marriage, they only need make legal arguments to appeal to a narrow segment of the population.

But, if the leaders of the gay marriage movement reached out to gays on the right, they might better be able to appeal to the population at large.  While many of traditionally Democratic constituencies are averse to same-sex marriage, some Republicans, particularly those born after 1960, might, if better arguments were made, be persuaded to change their minds.

Gay men and women on the right (including many in the various chapters of Log Cabin) have worked with such individuals and understand their concerns.  We can help develop arguments to address those concerns and reach out to conservative leaders, like Ward Connerly, favorable to same-sex marriage, perhaps even persuading them to speak out on our behalf.

We would like to be part of the conversation on the direction of the gay movement.  If the leaders of the gay organizations continue to exclude us, as they did from LA’s “Townhall” earlier this week, they risk marginalizing themselves as left-wingers and making it easier for proponents of traditional marriage to present themselves as representing the mainstream of American society.

In short, the failure of the gay organizations to include gay conservatives increases the likelihood that they will fail to build a genuine societal consensus on gay marriage.

As I’ve written before, it’s a question of approach and attitude.  In approaching conservatives, the portion of the population to which we must appeal, many of us have gained a better idea of the attitude necessary to address them and their concerns.

Share

40 Comments

  1. I couldn’t agree more. I am a straight, conservative and married man. Until about a year ago, I – shamefully – was opposed to gay marriage. It was the line of reasoning in this blog that has caused the change in my heart. Thank you and please keep up the fight. Seems to me that married gay people, serious about their own vows, would only strengthen the institution of marriage.

    Comment by Lou — April 3, 2009 @ 5:42 pm - April 3, 2009

  2. conservatives have been generally excluded from the discussion on how to advance gay rights because conservatives tend to have ingrained beliefs that are antithetical to gay rights. this isn’t difficult. the majority of social conservatives believe being gay is an “abomination” against god, a satan-derived sociopathology, and something that will bring the end to western civilization as we know it. until americans become less indoctrinated by religious doctrine, most of these beliefs will not be altered, no matter how persuasive your arguments. people so committed to their religious beliefs don’t use logic and reasoning when arguing topics like this.

    the courts are not overreaching by finding unconstitutional a state law restricting marriage to different-sex partners. you may disagree with the court’s interpretation of the constitution, but the process is not wrong, nor is it overreaching.

    i hope we can convince the public at large that gay marriage is a good thing, but gays should not be precluded from obtaining these rights because the public feels a certain way. that’s not how our founding fathers designed the system.

    the problem with this issue is that so many people derive their position based on their religious views. peoples’ religious views are nearly immutable, especially for those a little older in age. we should continue to make our case for gay marriage, but we should not be afraid to use the full extent of our government to achieve equal marriage rights.

    and gpw: perhaps us “gay leftists” will be less reluctant to include republicans in the cause when your party stops using gay issues as a political wedge to get out the bigot vote (on which your party relies so heavily).

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 3, 2009 @ 6:07 pm - April 3, 2009

  3. Thank goodness leftists never use gay issues as a political wedge. Oh wait that’s exactly what bob is doing in this very thread!

    So let me see, you’re saying you can’t try to build a consensus because republicans are ickybadevilnazidemondogs right? So its pointless to even try, even though you’ve never actually tried, you know there’s no point, because they’re bad, and you don’t need to challenge your assumption there by actually like, talking to republicans and trying to work with them because your masters tell you Repubs are like, bad and stuff. Right?

    So there’s no way off the merry go round of hatred towards Them Damned Dirty Rethuglikkins.

    Comment by Dark Eden — April 3, 2009 @ 6:32 pm - April 3, 2009

  4. and gpw: perhaps us “gay leftists” will be less reluctant to include republicans in the cause when your party stops using gay issues as a political wedge to get out the bigot vote (on which your party relies so heavily).

    Which, of course, doesn’t bother you a bit when the Obama Party does it.

    Pity that Obama Party shills like yourself don’t have the guts to be consistent and admit that you use your sexual orientation as an excuse, boob. All you’re demonstrating is that gay leftists like yourself are complete and utter hypocrites.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 3, 2009 @ 6:32 pm - April 3, 2009

  5. PS bob talk to any actual Gay Republican (I know I know, you’ll have to stop yourself from screaming that they’re a nazi traitor long enough to actually listen to what they have to say, but try!) and they will tell you that you hate them for being Republican FAR more than Republicans hate them for being Gay. In fact, shock of shocks, most straight Republicans are very nice to Gay Republicans. Its like crazy mad insane and stuff!

    Comment by Dark Eden — April 3, 2009 @ 6:35 pm - April 3, 2009

  6. Meanwhile, the reason gay-sex liberals like boob keep getting shot down by the public is because they are already making arguments for incestuous and plural marriage and claiming that monogamy is “harmful” in order to extoll the virtues of adultery and three-ways in marriage.

    In the case of lust, Savage attends a Lifestyles Organization (LSO) swinger’s convention in Las Vegas, where heterosexual couples add spice to their lives by swapping spouses. Here Savage reminds us that monogamy is unnatural, and that “only fools would build marriages with monogamy as their foundation (and only a foolish society would demand such behavior).”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 3, 2009 @ 6:36 pm - April 3, 2009

  7. #2 I am a straight conservative who supports SSM. #1 is also a straight conservative who supports SSM. Reaching out to the public would be a lot more productive than demonization and resigning yourself that reaching out is pointless.
    Going through the courts has backfired. How about going to the people?

    Comment by Andrew — April 3, 2009 @ 6:59 pm - April 3, 2009

  8. conservatives have been generally excluded from the discussion on how to advance gay rights because conservatives tend to have ingrained beliefs that are antithetical to gay rights.

    That’s a mighty wide brush you paint with, dude. Putting aside for the moment what you mean by “gay rights”, your statement here is absurd on its face. I’m assuming that your comments here are related to SSM so I’ll stick with that one issue. Conservatives are no more monolithic than liberals are. Not every conservative is a social conservative, I’d wager that not even a majority are. Even among those conservatives who favor SSM one find a lack of unity, because some may reject the method for obtaining such being currently employed while others do not not for various reasons. Some conservatives may not support SSM buut do support SSCU. Etc.

    Comment by John — April 3, 2009 @ 7:37 pm - April 3, 2009

  9. um, if any of you have noticed, i’ve argued with and tried to persuade conservative gays on this blog to support gay rights, so it’s not like i never talk to conservatives.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 3, 2009 @ 8:13 pm - April 3, 2009

  10. and of course there are some conservatives that are amenable to change and who already support gay marriage. my point is that we are wasting valuable time if we make 100% of our effort to advance gay relationships to convince social conservatives to value gay relationships. these are the people who think that god placed dinosaur fossils in the ground as a “test of faith”.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 3, 2009 @ 8:15 pm - April 3, 2009

  11. to advance gay *rights

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 3, 2009 @ 8:16 pm - April 3, 2009

  12. “Thank goodness leftists never use gay issues as a political wedge. Oh wait that’s exactly what bob is doing in this very thread!”

    actually, de, that’s not what i’m doing. i’m pointing out a fact from the 2004 election (among several). republicans strategically revved up the issue of a federal marriage amendment around election time (knowing it wouldn’t pass congress) and put ballot initiatives in key states (like ohio) intentionally to drive up the evangelical conservative base.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 3, 2009 @ 8:21 pm - April 3, 2009

  13. republicans strategically revved up the issue of a federal marriage amendment around election time (knowing it wouldn’t pass congress) and put ballot initiatives in key states (like ohio) intentionally to drive up the evangelical conservative base.

    And what was boob doing in 2004?

    Saying how such state constitutional amendments were “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” because his Obama Party candidate supported them.

    Once again, boob demonstrates his hypocrisy by blaming and namecalling Republicans for behavior he supports and endorses in the Obama Party.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 3, 2009 @ 8:33 pm - April 3, 2009

  14. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/03/republicans-weigh-in-on-iowa-same-sex-ruling/

    here, the chairman of the RNC, michael steele, says that allowing gays to marry threatens family values. where’s the outrage, gpw? how would you react if a democrat said this? he’s not only making an argument about the process (i.e. courts versus legislative avenue). he’s saying the result is threatening family values, i.e., allowing gays to marry threatens the social fabric of our society.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 3, 2009 @ 8:36 pm - April 3, 2009

  15. Dan, I think the ‘by any means necessary’ method of some (most) gay rights advocates on the left leave no room for such archaeic things as ‘seperation of powers’ or ‘rule of law’

    bob’s definition of gay rights is ‘what bob wants’ since several people who post regularly (not to mention those who run the blog) have a much better nuanced view of ‘rights’ than ‘Let me do what I want, no matter who I have to oppress to do it.’

    bob’s definition of ‘discussion’ is to insult, strurt his credentials he can’t back up, and crow how he’s smarter than everyone else. So smart in fact, that he can’t find the {shift} key.

    He also beleives that the key to the economic recovery can’t be found in free market ideals, but in Nazi Germany. Maybe he figures the black uniform won’t clash with his heels? I have to assume he a) doesn’t know where the pink triangle came from, and b) he never watched Star Trek as a kid.

    Also in his hedonistic desire to force his views on an unwilling populace, bob shows the weaknesses of his arguement. When pointed out his fellow travellers speak the much greater agenda, he sulks, whines, but won’t disavow them.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 3, 2009 @ 8:43 pm - April 3, 2009

  16. Ack, filter post.

    Bob, how doesn’t rulings like this threaten ‘family values’ since the courts show a disregard for rule of law, precident, or history?

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 3, 2009 @ 8:45 pm - April 3, 2009

  17. bob said, “and of course there are some conservatives that are amenable to change and who already support gay marriage. my point is that we are wasting valuable time if we make 100% of our effort to advance gay relationships to convince social conservatives to value gay relationships. these are the people who think that god placed dinosaur fossils in the ground as a “test of faith”.”

    How about 50% of your time? Too much? 10%? 1%? See you are arguing that you shouldn’t ‘waste’ ANY time with Conservatives because they’re so gosh darn eivlly evilicious. Now you’re saying its a mistake to spend 100% of your time doing this. Which um… is not what the OP was about by the way.

    Also bob you should recall that the Democrats are also against gay marriage, so… I’m not quite sure why you’re picking on the Repubs on this issue. Oh wait I know, its never really been about Gay Rights, its really about serving your DNC masters, like NOW, the NAACP, and all the other lefty groups.

    Comment by Dark Eden — April 3, 2009 @ 8:46 pm - April 3, 2009

  18. actually, de, i’m not saying we shouldn’t spend any time trying to woo conservatives. please go re-read what i wrote. what i’m saying is that we shouldn’t base our entire strategy on trying to get everyone to agree with us so we can have popular support. my point is we have courts for a reason: to uphold the constitution and protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 3, 2009 @ 8:49 pm - April 3, 2009

  19. and president obama’s position is that gays should have the exact same rights; he just says we should leave “marriage” (i.e. the name) to heterosexual couples. i don’t agree with him, but if the rights are exactly the same, i don’t care if you want to call it asparagus. i’ll call my marriage what i want.

    what i don’t think is adequate is a state-by-state system without any of the federal benefits.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 3, 2009 @ 8:51 pm - April 3, 2009

  20. he’s not only making an argument about the process (i.e. courts versus legislative avenue). he’s saying the result is threatening family values, i.e., allowing gays to marry threatens the social fabric of our society.

    Given that gay liberals like you, boob, are openly stating that monogamy is unnatural, and that “only fools would build marriages with monogamy as their foundation (and only a foolish society would demand such behavior),” that seems more than logical.

    Furthermore, your feigned outrage is hilarious when you later make it clear that you’re perfectly OK with opposition to gay marriage when it comes from the Obama Party. You’re simply not capable of being consistent or non-hypocritical, are you?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 3, 2009 @ 9:16 pm - April 3, 2009

  21. let me make this simple for ya, NDT: i want equal rights; i’m not all too worried about the semantics.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 3, 2009 @ 9:44 pm - April 3, 2009

  22. Then you should have no problem, because marriage is not a “right”. It is a privilege that society extends to relationships that meet a very specific and spelled-out set of conditions.

    You don’t want to live by the conditions. Why, then, should you receive the privilege?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 3, 2009 @ 9:54 pm - April 3, 2009

  23. and by “condition” you mean having a sham marriage?

    every time you post, ndt, you remind us all why your party is a joke.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 3, 2009 @ 10:15 pm - April 3, 2009

  24. Oh look! Boob is back to remind us how mucher smart he am.

    And he throws in his hatred of Christians to boot. What a tolerant & inclusinve SOB he is. His own bigotry might be cute if it wasn’t so damn pathetic.

    intentionally to drive up the evangelical conservative base.

    Ummmm….that was the reason John F.YOU Kerry, who served in Vietnam, decided it was so important to remind everybody that Mary Cheney is a lesbian.

    and protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

    And there it is! The real reason he wants to force it on everybody. VICTIMHOOD.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 3, 2009 @ 10:46 pm - April 3, 2009

  25. Filtered.

    every time you post, ndt, you remind us all why your party is a joke.

    What, then, does that make the bumbling fools ruling Washington right now?

    Geez, boob. Maybe you need a breathalyzer…er…inhalator.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 3, 2009 @ 10:48 pm - April 3, 2009

  26. and by “condition” you mean having a sham marriage?

    No, I mean if you can’t meet all the conditions, you shouldn’t get married at all. By your logic, we should allow child marriage simply because then pedophiles wouldn’t have to enter sham marriages with adults.

    Why you would be so crass to even think of having a sham marriage, which is an affront to everything the marriage institution represents, is beyond me; the fact that you would even do that speaks volumes for just how vile and contemptuous your attitude towards marriage is, and is an excellent argument for why you and the vast majority of the gay community should be kept out of it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 3, 2009 @ 11:13 pm - April 3, 2009

  27. There IS a new group forming — go to http://www.GOProud.org to sign up now!

    Comment by GayPatriot — April 3, 2009 @ 11:20 pm - April 3, 2009

  28. #25
    We must have crashed their server. Everytime I try to sign up, there’s an error of some sort.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 4, 2009 @ 1:26 am - April 4, 2009

  29. bob in #2, did you read the title to this post? It’s about gay conservatives, not social conservatives.

    so, you want to exclude us because of what our party does, yet we’re the ones trying to change our party. So, wouldn’t they want to help us do that?

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 4, 2009 @ 3:47 am - April 4, 2009

  30. here, the chairman of the RNC, michael steele, says that allowing gays to marry threatens family values

    And you are the best example of why Steele is correct.

    Comment by rightwingprof — April 4, 2009 @ 6:19 am - April 4, 2009

  31. thanks for proving my point.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 4, 2009 @ 8:28 am - April 4, 2009

  32. gpw says: “so, you want to exclude us because of what our party does, yet we’re the ones trying to change our party. So, wouldn’t they want to help us do that?”

    first, i never said i wanted to exclude anyone. i said the reason conservatives are often excluded is because many (most?) conservatives are bigoted toward gays. are there some socially progressive conservatives? of course. i welcome them aboard. but those of you who are pro- gay rights have failed to stand up and adequately criticize your party when it puts forth this bigotry. why did you not make a post on your blog criticizing michael steele for what he just said?

    i also disagree w/ the notion that we need to convince the whole world that we’re not demons in order to get full marriage rights. i’ve explained this before. that does not mean i don’t think we should help people understand why gay marriages would benefit society, but i don’t think convincing people of this fact should be a precursor to equal rights.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 4, 2009 @ 8:38 am - April 4, 2009

  33. bob; i hope we can convince the public at large that gay marriage is a good thing, but gays should not be precluded from obtaining these rights because the public feels a certain way. that’s not how our founding fathers designed the system.

    Supreme Court of Iowa: “[E]qual protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.”

    So I’m still waiting for bob to condemn the SCoI for not following how ‘our founding fathers designed the system’.

    But that would require it not to be all about him.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 4, 2009 @ 10:11 am - April 4, 2009

  34. Conservatives are excluded because the left want to modify the rhetoric to change the hearts and minds of those who are opposed to Gay Marriage. They prefer to shove it down peoples throats, like it or not. Evangelicals are not the only ones opposed. The Roman Catholic Church opposes gay marriage and they outnumber the evangelicals. Then there is a growing muslim minority in this country. Most of them can´t or won´t assimilate into our daily culture, so how can we expect their approval. Has anybody heard anything from Orthodox Judaism?

    Comment by Roberto — April 4, 2009 @ 4:38 pm - April 4, 2009

  35. There are gays who seek gay marriage because they respect the institution of marriage and want to belong. They are the ones being hurt.

    And then there are gays who view gay marriage as a civil rights trophy. No more, and no less. They are not being hurt.

    If you can sneer and smirk out the word “breeders” in your conversations, then you are not seeking to join in to a revered institution. You are not for gay marriage. You’re for only the trophy, and screw you.

    If you can read this phrase (which appears above in the comments) and agree with it, then you are not for gay marriage. You’re just seeking the trophy, and screw you.

    The phrase:
    “only fools would build marriages with monogamy as their foundation (and only a foolish society would demand such behavior).”

    Agree with the phrase? Go ahead, “breeder”-sneerer. No one needs you, trophy-hunter.

    Or disagree with the phrase? Welcome to the real fight, to be allowed to join into the hallowed, revered institution.

    Only those who disagree with that phrase are worthy of making a comparison to the miscegenation case “Loving vs Virginia”. They were seeking solely to be allowed to join the institution. Marriage – monogamous marriage – was itself the goal; it wasn’t being used as merely another stepping stone towards yet another, different goal of, say, polygamy, nor any other goal.

    And they’d done the hard work of convincing a plurality of people across many states. Not all – but many. Not just one. Many. Hard work, focused on the people, not solely on activist judges, who could hand them their little trophy.

    I personally can take or leave gay marriage. If you can convince a larger number of people that it’s a good idea, fine. Especially if you want it because you want to join in to the revered institution. But I’ve got no use at all for civil rights trophy hunters.

    Comment by Mike Devx — April 5, 2009 @ 12:00 am - April 5, 2009

  36. [...] experience their relationships, we often get a different reaction from its skeptics as this comment to my post on the exclusion of gay conservatives from gay marriage confabs indicates: I am a [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Gay Marriage: its Advocates, Practitioners & Skeptics — April 6, 2009 @ 4:09 am - April 6, 2009

  37. I am SO happy to see this website! We have social issues…the fiscal issues,my god…that will take decades. Who out there wants to be taxed out the ass! Who out there wants the federal government telling us that we have to do public service and then get taxed for it? We all can figure out our social issues…argue and fight for what is right. What we DON’T need is a government telling us that HAVE to pay a ton of taxes and throw the USA under the bus for a one world government. Stand up and fight for what is right! Get the goverment out of our lives! Please help all of us…if you’re in Denver, go to the Denver When: April 15, 12:00pm – 1:30pm Where: West steps of the Capitol, 200 East Colfax. United we stand. God Bless America and all of us, again united we stand!
    j

    Comment by Jammi Hedquist — April 7, 2009 @ 10:39 pm - April 7, 2009

  38. I am a gay moderate republican and I am glad to see this website is getting attention from the national media. As a Republican from the northeast I have to say that if the Republican Party wants to win nationally again, we must begin to appeal to young, affluent and moderate voters in the northeast. We want our taxes cut, strong defense, and the government to move out of the way, without telling us what is right and wrong and who we can and cannot fall in love with. The Republican party needs to shun the religious right, who falsely claim they are followers of Ronald Reagan, and move towards a fiscally conservative, socially inclusive platform that the vast majority of Americans can identify with.

    Comment by Jon P. — April 10, 2009 @ 8:46 pm - April 10, 2009

  39. This website would be hilarious if it weren’t serious. The masthead was designed by Stephen Colbert’s people. Mike Devx is channelling the snide, snivelling Colbert, except Devx is serious, while Colbert is a caricature of the Buckley conservative. God, Guns and Country! USA USA USA!!! The hard on for individualism, the free market, militarism, Ayn Rand and viewing poor people as lazy slobs is entertaining if nothing else. God bless America!

    Comment by David Waggoner — April 10, 2009 @ 10:30 pm - April 10, 2009

  40. [...] blog GayPatriot has been making the case for a split and arguing that gay rights groups should make the case for [...]

    Pingback by Ben Smith: Gay Republicans split | The Kansas Progress — April 19, 2009 @ 4:12 am - April 19, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.