GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

What Exactly Does It Mean to Achieve (Gay) “Equality”?

by

In her thoughtful post on a new gay group called “Equality Matters” (wish someone had instead created “Freedom Matters”), Ann Althouse gets at one reason, I believe, Democrats tried to keep DADT repeal on the back burner:

The Democratic Party gets a political advantage by looking like a repository of hope. But would gay people continue to favor Democrats if the Democrats actually followed through and satisfied those hopes? There’d be some gratefulness, but — unless Republicans succumb to the temptation to say mean things — wouldn’t gay people melt into the general population and, from that point on, vote based on what they thought about economic policies, national defense, environmental issues and so forth? Achieving equality would liberate gay people in may ways, but one of those ways would be that they could vote for Republicans if they agreed with them about issues other than gay rights issues.

She’s onto something.  Just read the whole thing.  And as usual, the comments, if you have a moment, are worth your while.

Wise though this blogress diva may be, she leaves out two things (1) the extreme partisanship of many gay activists and leaders who insist that adopting left-wing politics is part and parcel of the coming out experience (lest you remian a “self-hating” homosexual) and (2) the amorphous nature of the idea of “achieving equality” (what does that mean?).

Despite the numerous bills the California legislature has passed at the behest of “Equality California,” that gay auxiliary of the California Democratic Party keeps lobbying for more laws, either mandating more state spending or encroaching ever more on the liberties of individuals and private (and public) associations.

Better than focus on this amorphous notion of equality which seems to require an ever-expanding state, let’s instead focus on protecting our liberty — or in the case of America today, rescuing that liberty from those who seek to take it away in order to further “social justice” (another amorphous concept).

Comments

  1. I’ve already confronted this basic conundrum quite directly. After the repeal of DADT, I contacted some gay associates to talk about what the gay community needs to do now, to make sure the military leadership does not turn the repeal into a death sentence for enlisted gays in the Army. One of my gay friends bristled at the suggestion that the gay movement retreat from leftist polarity and warm up to some conservative viewpoints, since many gays in the military are likely to be more right-wing if not Republican. He refused to entertain any such thought. He says he will stay pacifist. He wants to have his repeal cake and eat his military too, all without having to serve directly.

  3. 1. The author of the quote is spot on. What does happen if LGBT people earn full equality?

    2. It’s amazing to me that as much pride as I have for myself being a homosexual, I have absolutely no Pride for the LGBT political community. Here you have a community who “pretends” to scream tolerance, inclusion, diversity, what have you, YET it’s “passe” or “bad gay” to lean right.
    And, then the LGBT community wonders why equality hasn’t happened faster. Try taking a look in the mirror.

    3. My final point, bringing this to the full circle of the article…DADT was repealed. Whoop de doo. Are their lines of LG people at recruiting stations waiting to serve? Of course not.

  7. What does happen if LGBT people earn full equality?

    A lot of social parasites (activists) who’ve made cushy livings running the HRC, the NGLTF and other organizations will be out of work and forced to find real jobs. This is why activists will forever move the “goalposts” of equality.

  8. As a proud conservative, I celebrate the repeal of DADT, not because of the many LGBT that may sign up, but rather because of the brave service men and women who no longer have to worry about being summarily dismissed, some after years of serving our country. They deserved better, and now perhaps they’ll get it.

  9. For most of my life, “coming out” meant “buying into the gay mythology.” I was only “out” if I conformed to existing stereotypes. “Coming out” has never meant “coming to terms with what it means to me to be gay.” “Coming out” has mostly meant signing onto the Gay Borg–“Resistance is futile, girlfriend.”

    As you say, being a liberal Democrat is part of the myth. Believing that multiple sex partners is natural and good is also part is also part of the myth–promiscuity is gay’s gift to the world. Gays can only survive in urban areas since rural areas are always oppressive and homophobic, so if you find yourself gay in the middle of Nebraska, you better move out as fast as you can. If you have mostly straight friends, you are self-loathing, Etc.

    My coming out process has involved rejecting the gay mythos and defining for myself what being gay means. For me, it means that gay is not the foundation of my identity. Being a Christian and being a man are much more foundational than my orientation, and my friends are men who share my core values, not my attraction to Jason Statham. (Though a man who shares both my values and my attractions would be nice to have around. Even better–a man who shares my values and is attracted to me.)

  10. What Exactly Does It Mean to Achieve (Gay) “Equality”?

    First: We achieve equality among gays.

    Second: We achieve equality among lesbians.

    Third: We achieve equality of equalized gays and equalized lesbians.

    Fourth: Ditto bisexuals.

    Fifth: Ditto trangendered.

    Sixth: Ditto whatever other parts and pieces missed in first through fifth.

    Seventh: We achieve equality among Hispanics (legal version.)

    Eighth: We achieve equality between equalized Hispanics and equalized gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender and parts and pieces.

    Ninth: Apply to whites, blacks, midgets, handicapped, ugly, women, illegals, non-veterans, women (again), reprobates, Harvard educated, Harvard uneducated, Bayou denizens, wearers of tube socks, Christian athletes, seal clubbers, viewers of The View, and every single other affinity group.

    Tenth: Everyone flies First Class for free.

  11. Short of an abortive civil war within the ranks, I just don’t see the prospective orgy of gay bashings and murders happening. One, there are already a significant number of gay or bisexual service-members already in the US military…and they have friends and buddies too. And now that DADT is basically ended for those who don’t publicly come out (yet), it still leaves field commanders the latitude to openly address any harassment or inappropriate behavior in either direction without automatically triggering discharge proceedings against the gay party involved.

    This both means that inappropriate behavior can be addressed at the unit level openly, and that others will now be willing to come to the defense of a G/L service-member without worrying about “outing” them, or casting suspicions upon themselves. One important aspect of unit cohesion is the uniform says “…I have friends”. And just as NCO’s and DI’s have adjusted from harassing the nerdy, geeky guys in the old-days to the 21st-century’s “…protect that geek, he can use (and fix) the technology that saves your butt next time.”

    I also have no illusions that there will not be a few splashy scandals and bloody incidents, but that’s no different than the current incidents involving the breeders; the break-ups, the sexual assaults, murders after returning from a deployment, etc… And then there are the “accidental” pregnancies both stateside and in-theater. And the straight service-members aren’t supposed to be having sex either while on deployments at sea or in the combat zones…that’s supposed to be a court-martial offense too for BOTH parties.

    Let’s just hope the first few post DADT “gay” scandals are losses of “zipper-control” rather than someone dying.

  12. ‘Social Justice’ turns the idea of ‘justice’ on it’s head. It attempts to redefine the concept based on classification. It implies that all members of an interest group can be either inherently innocent or inherently guilty of some moral crime.

    The first thing that Social Justice does is to stereotype everyone.

    Shouldn’t any of us be punished for a crime, moral or otherwise, that was committed by someone who only resembled us?

    Who gets to make the determination of which people resemble which others? Why should the groupings be based on our community’s assessment of us and not our own assessment of ourselves? Is the re-labeling of Gay conservatives as “Homo sell-out” fair? Is the re-labeling of Black conservatives as “Uncle Tom” fair?

    Who get’s to choose which group we belong to? Who gets to choose what OUR interests SHOULD be? Do these things not determine our identity?

    ‘Social Justice’ is intrinsically de-humanizing. There can only ever be ‘Individual Justice’.
    .

  16. One must remember in talking with leftists that their concept of “justice” is rooted, not in acts or behaviors, but in minority or economic status.

    The Obama Party and Barack Obama are a prime example. They scream that it is “unjust” for people to not pay their taxes or attempt to minimize their tax burden — unless, of course, you are of the correct skin color (Charles Rangel), political affiliation (John Kerry), or donor base (Warren Buffet).

    The last is a tremendous example. He has figured out that you can be insanely rich and dodge taxes all you want as long as you spout leftist ideology. Same with the worthless Pelosi, who can babble about waste and the evil rich as she demands a 757 to make a ten-minute flight to an airport that’s closer to her country home and vineyard.

  17. Excellent posts that are well thought out and easy to read!!! What does a minority group (not specifically applied the LGBT) do when its goals are achieved. Rationally, they would disband and declare “mission accomplished!” Unfortunately, as mentioned above, the professional adovocates or equality then have to look for real jobs. Guess what? That isnt going to happen in light of their not having any significant qualifications for a real job. Hence, they have to find (by definition) some real or imagined “inequality” to complain about and champion. Global Warming has become Climate Change, etc. Once again, as a Native American (Assiniboine Sioux and Mountain Cahuilla) why do Caucasian People have this social neurosis about having to be guilty about something, anything to feel (not believe) good about themselves? When some Native Tribes out West started making bank via casinos, they stopped playing the “poor oppressed native” role.

  21. Actually, given the behavior his fellow liberal gays support and endorse, Barney Frank was inadvertently demonstrating the point.

    Perhaps Barney Frank could explain for us how our troops are served by his fellow gay people masturbating and leaving ejaculate all over their shower rooms.

    And perhaps Barney Frank could explain how the rules are to be enforced when gays and lesbians like him scream “homophobia” and “hate speech” every time their behavior is criticized.