Yes, America, Conservative Ideas Do Benefit Gay People
Via a reader’s Facebook page, I caught this clip of Chris Barron on CNN. What stands out is what he said at two points, points Bruce and I have been making as long as we have been blogging, indeed, were making even before we started blogging:
Starting at about 1:45, Chris begins by saying that we should be “past identity just for the sake of identity politics.” Then, commenting on the Iowa judges (who ruled in favor of state recognition of same-sex marriage) being voted out, he pointed out that “a strategy that relies solely on the courts is a flawed strategy.” Hear! Hear! Instead, he says gay groups should do the hard work of changing hearts and minds.
Then, about 3 minutes later, starting at about 4:45, he faults the “big-government” agenda of the gay left, pointing out that conservative reforms benefit gay people.
Been waiting to hear this kind of rhetoric on national television from the folks at Log Cabin for about as long I’ve been following Log Cabin. And now someone is finally getting it across. Kudos, Chris, job well done!
19 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The gay left is so obsessed with so call big government for whatever reason. Most gays are no different than anyone else and want economic opportunities in order to make something of themselves!
Comment by Dave_62 — November 9, 2010 @ 12:52 am - November 9, 2010
Sorry – I was a little distracted by Danielle Belton’s fabulous hairdo. That said, very informative clip.
Comment by Ben — November 9, 2010 @ 1:35 am - November 9, 2010
[...] Yes, America, Conservative Ideas Do Benefit Gay People [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » GOProud: go-to gay group in a more Republican Washington — November 9, 2010 @ 1:47 am - November 9, 2010
Pretty good. Of course it bothers me that he abides or defends the anti-democratic judicial strategy at ALL. He seems to understand that the proper route for approval of gay marriage is by persuading the people, yet at the same time he still clings to the falsehood that judicial activism has a proper role in this policy dispute, which is very disappointing.
Comment by American Elephant — November 9, 2010 @ 3:24 am - November 9, 2010
Both guests deserved a better interviewer, but then she annoyed me by repeating LGBT several times.
Comment by Jeff — November 9, 2010 @ 8:20 am - November 9, 2010
And Florida elected our first female AG, Pam Bondi (R) while scuttling the first female Governor, Alex Sink (D).
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 9, 2010 @ 9:11 am - November 9, 2010
My question is: Is CNN still on the air?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 9, 2010 @ 9:25 am - November 9, 2010
When nowhere near fifty percent of the candidates RUNNING for office are female why should fifty percent of those ELECTED be female? Is it not entirely possible that, as a whole, allot less females are interested in running for office?
Comment by Ryan — November 9, 2010 @ 9:29 am - November 9, 2010
AE (at #4) hits the nail on the head. Any credence given to the judicial strategy is giving approval to an ‘any means necessary’ approach. All this talk of ‘black’ this and ‘lgbt’ that also has no place coming from a conservative organization. When can we homocons go back to just being conservatives/Republicans again? Jeez, Mary.
Comment by Brendan in Philly — November 9, 2010 @ 1:57 pm - November 9, 2010
American Elephant – can you define what a proper role for the judiciary is?? I wholeheartedly admit the judiciary has abused power and the constitution over the years (one of the worst is in New Jersey) but I get the feeling that many here would like to see all the courts up to the Supreme Courts reduced to deciding cases no more serious than the ones Judge Judy tries on TV. Both the current and previous presidents have more than amply demonstrated how the Executive branch can be abused with the Legislative branch either unable or unwilling to curtail that abuse.
Everyone needs to look honestly at their motivations for yelling “down with the judiciary”. The judicial process does have it’s place and citizens, including those of us who feel that same-sex marriage is warranted have just as much right to pursue redress in court as they do from Congress and the President.
Comment by PopArt — November 9, 2010 @ 2:40 pm - November 9, 2010
yes, judicial restraint. The Constitution is a contract. It does not need interpretation, it needs application. The job of the judiciary is not to interpret the constitution or even the laws, the job of the judiciary is to apply the Constitution and the laws to the cases that come before them. If the Constitution or statute are silent on an issue, it is the job of the judiciary to rule that the the law is silent on the issue.
The Constitution is a contract. If contracts can be unilaterally changed after the fact, then they are useless.
Comment by American Elephant — November 9, 2010 @ 4:56 pm - November 9, 2010
Hear! Hear! Identity politics are antithetical to conservatism in the first place. I would hope any gay organization that claims to be conservative would reflect that. In other words, that we are conservatives who just happen to be gay. And while GOProud is much better on that front than the gay left, or Log Cabin, they still can’t seem to kick that bad habit altogether.
But then the gay “community” as a whole is apparently forever obsessed with obsessing about their gayness.
Comment by American Elephant — November 9, 2010 @ 5:05 pm - November 9, 2010
she forgot the two “Q”s for “queer” and “questioning” and probably a litany of other letters as well.
Someone should be outraged!
Comment by American Elephant — November 9, 2010 @ 5:07 pm - November 9, 2010
I never thought I’d live long enough to hear someone say what Chris Barron said during that interview. If we help the GOP cut taxes and strengthen the nation’s borders, they might indeed look on us as allies and not mere puppets of the liberal gay groups. And we’d all benefit in the long run.
Comment by Dottie Laird — November 9, 2010 @ 5:17 pm - November 9, 2010
PopArt: With regard to the legislative function, the role of the judiciary should be that it reviews legislation (that has passed and been signed of course) – not that it creates legislation. The judiciary should be able to say “We find that legislation X is unconstitutional and strike it down.” That’s it. Full stop.
And so the judiciary should not be able to say, “… We order social change X to now happen.” For example: we order busing of schoolkids; we order that the Legislature must come up with a gay marriage law by such and such a date; etc. That usurps the legislative function.
As a gay marriage supporter, I came to understand several years ago that getting it by the courts is a huge mistake. I support gay marriage and was doing in the 90s before it was cool. But a State license for anything – be it fishing, driving, professional practice, marriage, incorporation or whatever else – is a legislative creation. A legislative creation is not a fundamental right. Individuals have fundamental rights to life, liberty and property which government merely recognizes and chooses to protect (or else the government is tyrannous). Government does not *create* those rights. Government does create State licenses. State licensing schemes grant privileges to some, which are thus implicitly denied to others. Such schemes should always be legislated.
State marriage licensing lets 2 unrelated, unattached adults declare themselves to be a family in the eyes of the law. The purpose of the license is (in part) to create inequality by excluding certain other types of relationship: exclude the relationships for example of the incestuous, the polygamous, the underaged, etc. I endorse that. I just happen to think that the relationships of (unrelated, unattached, adult) gays and lesbians should no longer be excluded.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2010 @ 8:34 pm - November 9, 2010
(continued) And I’m prepared to persuade people, however long it takes to arrive at a legislated outcome.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2010 @ 9:06 pm - November 9, 2010
Thank you AE and ILoveCap for your willingness to spell out the problems with the judicial solution. I generally agree or respect your views about it, especially the Constitution as Contract. I will confess that my support for the court cases on marriage and DADT has a lot to do with my exhaustion and frustration at the stacked legislation process (such as Reid’s scum move of tacking on DREAM Act to DADT repeal). I would like to trust that the legislative branch could be persuaded to set aside narrow belief systems or cynicism and their self-interests and get to addressing the serious issues ailing this country instead of irrationally blaming a segment of hard-working taxpayers for causing them whether it’s Republicans for the tired excuses of “deeply held beliefs” or Democrats for gays not being polite and patient enough. I actually want to get past identity politics sooner rather than later but the reality is there is still a ways to go.
That’s why I don’t like putting all the eggs in one basket whether it’s a predominantly judicial approach or legislative. The right court decisions could prompt action from the legislative and even vice versa.
Comment by PopArt — November 9, 2010 @ 11:08 pm - November 9, 2010
I can understand exhaustion and frustration. It can be very exhausting and frustrating when you want something and the majority don’t agree that you should have it. It doesn’t, however, mean we are being denied something that is rightfully ours. And it doesn’t mean that those who disagree with you are narrow-minded, cynical, only looking out for their self interests, or irrational.
Comment by American Elephant — November 10, 2010 @ 4:54 am - November 10, 2010
Oh I understand what you’re saying. And I wasn’t referring to everyone who respectfully disagreed with me. However, I still stand by the four descriptors for the vast majority of those currently in federal office from Obama and Reid and McConnell and Boehner down to the latest neophyte aspiring career politician. And I’ll admit to being a bit hypocritical in morally justifying some judicial end runs around the legislature but all the career politicians do end runs around the taxpayers every day. Just saying.
Comment by PopArt — November 11, 2010 @ 11:55 am - November 11, 2010