GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Will gay activists never tire of asking for more government action?

by

“How Many Laws”, I asked in October 2010, “Do We Need To Achieve ‘Full Equality’?”

That question crossed my mind again yesterday when I read Paul Bedard’s post in the Washington Examiner:

President Obama’s campaign website lists 41 achievements on behalf of gay voters–a White House record–making him the hero of the community. But for some that’s not enough as he is about to find out during a star-studded Miami fundraiser Tuesday featuring singer Marc Anthony.

As donors gather at the Jackie Gleason Theater three blocks from the oceanfront to fete the president at a Latinos for Obama event, vocal members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community plan to protest for an executive order barring workplace discrimination, the last major gay initiative awaiting action by the president.

No matter how much society changes, it will always pose certain challenges to be different, even the most tolerant environments.

Government will never be able to solve all (or even most of) our problems.  Indeed, more often than not, state solutions exacerbate problems they were designed to rectify.

Let us continue to push for federal recognition of our unions and then once we’ve secured those privileges, look out for our fellows and turn to private associations for social improvement.

Free markets are good for gays

by

As diligent readers of this blog now, I am very skeptical of the notion of “equality” as pushed by the various left-leaning gay groups. They tend to want to achieve “full equality” through greater government regulation of our economy — and our lives.

Sometimes, they become so blinded to this notion that they neglect the original goal of gay rights’ movements–to make it possible for us to live freely and openly without our sexuality preventing us from participating in society or advancing professionally. They seem to think we need government to grant us more “rights” in order to effect the needed social change.

A new study seems to show quite the opposite, confirming a point I’ve been making for as long as I’ve been talking about gay issues, that all we need is economic freedom, given that private enterprises tend to respond readily to changes in society. Even in the Bush era, I noted, an increasing number of corporations adopted non-discrimination clauses as part of their employment policies and expanded their benefits packages to include same-sex partners.

Others have also studied how economic freedom helps people like us.  Through “Regression analysis of up to 65 countries“, Niclas Berggren of The Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN) and Therese Nilsson of the Department of Economics, Lund University; Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN) find that

. . . economic freedom is positively related to tolerance towards homosexuals, especially in the longer run, while tolerance towards people of a different race and a willingness to teach kids tolerance are not strongly affected by how free markets are. [Read more…]

GOProud, Log Cabin deliver stern warnings to Mitt Romney

by

What Log Cabin Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper giveth in one release on Thursday, with his strong statement on Obama’s fundraising pitch to the gay community, he taketh (partially) away in another that very day with a threatening language  directed against his own party’s presidential nominee:

Marriage equality has captured the nation’s attention, and the response to President Obama’s announcement is evidence of the tide turning in favor of equality for all. . . .

Governor Mitt Romney’s statement in opposition to not just marriage but civil unions jeopardizes his ability to win moderates, women and younger voters, especially as a large majority of Americans favor some form of relationship recognition for their LGBT friends and neighbors.

Equality for all?  What’s that mean?  It’s certainly not a conservative slogan, but one more familiar to a Mr. W. Smith.

Clarke is right to criticize Romney for his “opposition to not just marriage but civil unions”, but his tone is counterproductive.  Moderates, women and younger voters won’t vote against him because of his stand on gay marriage.  They will, however, vote against him if he makes that stand central to his campaign.  They’re not going to decide their vote exclusively on gay marriage.  He would have served himself (and the cause of his organization) better had he merely expressed disappointment with Romney’s position.

Clarke is not the only non-left gay leader to offer intemperate remarks about Romney this week.  Our pal JimmyLaSalvia, Executive Director and Co-Founder of GOProud, “With his speech at Falwell’s Liberty University, it is clear that Governor Romney’s message to Goldwater conservatives is: drop dead.”  Earlier today, Governor Romney delivered the commencement address there.

While we would rather the Republican nominee not have to make a courtesy call at Jerry Falwell U (as have all Republican candidates “in recent years“), Romney’s speech hardly amounted to a repudiation of Goldwater’s small government ideals.  Indeed, his talk barely touched upon government’s role in society, save to remind the graduating students that “Religious liberty is the first freedom in our Constitution“. He focused instead on the importance of family and faith.

And he did say, what we already know him to believe, “Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.” He offered nothing new on social issues — and didn’t attack gay people or advocate policies anathema to libertarians. [Read more…]

Dogs and Cats Living Together

by

Well, I’m back from my deployment and wouldn’t you know the first post I make is as earth-shattering and gob-smacking as this:

I agree with what Bill Maher and Andrew Sullivan have to say here:

“If we are to retain equal citizenship, everybody should be responsible for their actions, not their thoughts.” – Sullivan

Some other good lines:

“I think the law should send the message, ‘You know what? Even if you’re emotional, you can’t commit a crime.'” – Maher

“No one is defending hate here, okay? We’re defending liberty.” – Sullivan

“The right of a bigot to walk down the street is the same as the right of a drag queen to walk down the street.” – Sullivan

“If pranking people on the basis of what every prank is–often involved, which can often be bigotry…if that is now 10 years in prison, then half the country is going to have to be locked up” – Sullivan

“I just think this is what gives Liberals a bad name.” – Maher

(on Ravi): “He insists that he did not do this out of homophobia. Some court decided what was inside his mind–for him. And he risked a lot to insist that he wasn’t a bigot.” – Sullivan

“I believe that a free country is freedom for bigotry. I really do. I think it’s freedom that they should be able to say whatever they want. But shutting people down–Criminalizing them–is not a free country.” – Sullivan

(and please forgive me, my blogging skills–as they ever were–are rusty and so I don’t known how to imbed this video from RCP…perhaps Dan or Bruce can help me out?)

I used to read (and agree with) Andrew Sullivan a LOT. I read him back in the BoiFromTroy days that got me involved with this blog in the first place. (Those were some haydays, no?) When he abandoned much of what he had pre-FMA supported, I was pretty disappointed to say the least. Here it’s good to see he hasn’t completely lost all his bearings, and perhaps I should take a look again?

– Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Why gay conservatives should be wary of notion of “equality”

by

In his thoughtful commentary on the president’s speech in Osawatomie, law professor and Theodore Roosevelt biographer Joshua D. Hawley offers this observation about the liberal notion of equality:

Following Roosevelt’s lead, liberals have advocated government as the guarantor of equality, as the principal agent of national improvement, and indeed, as the source of shared national identity.

Emphasis added.

And this is why we need be wary of those who promote “equality” through legislation.  For someone must adjudicate equality.  It seems those on the left are comfortable with having the state serve as adjudicator.  But, those of who us value our freedom should always be wary of granting more power to the state.

Equality: an abstraction impossible to realize

by

In a review of David Mamet’s The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture, Gerard Reed reminds us of the tension that exists between the conservative/libertarian ideal of liberty and the leftish abstraction of equality:

The path the leftist boomers (such as Mamet in his youth) follow was identified by Hayek as “The Road to Serfdom. And we see it in operation here, as we are in the process of choosing, as a society, between Liberty—the freedom from the State to pursue happiness, and a supposed but impossible Equality, which, as it could only be brought about by a State capable and empowered to function in all facets of life, means totalitarianism and eventual dictatorship” (p. 61). Egalitarian Liberals constantly stress the importance of sympathy and compassion, of caring for others. Translated into political action, however, these feelings frequently prove destructive, fully evident when Big Government imposes its agenda.

Emphasis added.  (H/t Westside Republicans e-newsletter)  In the book Mamet noted how politicians (and their activist) allies tout the abstraction of “Equality” as an excuse to increase the power of the state: “the prime purpose of Government is to expand Equality, which may also be stated thus: to expand its own powers”.

While we should strive to be compassionate in our personal lives, to look out for those around us, Reed’s commentary reminds us of the dangers of state compassion.  Since governments don’t generate income, save by what it expropriates from citizens, when a state strives to be compassionate, it often sets its people on a road to serfdom.

There is much the adjective that Mamet uses to modify “Equality,” “impossible.”  The ideal of liberty is much easier to define, but equality is much more abstract notion.  How does one achieve “equality” in a nation of diverse individuals, each of whom places different values on different aspect of our lives?  Should we compensate a man more who chooses to work fewer hours so he has more time to devote to his family than we compensate a woman who chooses not to have a family and work long hours so she can be a successful (and powerful) attorney? [Read more…]

Is increase in government power necessary to achieve “equality”?

by

Welcome Instapundit Readers!!

Today, I inaugurate a new category, “Equality,” deliberately putting the word defining said category in quotation marks.  Not only do we have a gay movement focused on attaining this elusive and ambiguous abstaction, but with the rise of the #Occupy Wall Street movement, “income inequality” has also come to the fore, as Jazz Shaw reports, one “of the hot terms occupying the center ring of the political circus these days“.

It seems that in both cases, the various political movements are demanding increased government regulation of and control over private enterprise in order to achieve their desired equal result.

Recently, I listened to a representative of “Equality California” detailing all the legislation his outfit advocated, asking his interlocutor to eheck the web-site to see the full list of laws they wanted to see enacted.  Driving away, I recalled the first five words of the Bill of Rights, “Congress shall make no law . . .”  (Emphasis added.)

This important addition to our nation’s charter reinforced its initial provisions limiting the things the federal government can do.*  Later, the Fourteenth Amendment applied these limitations to the states.

The Founder and the Framers wanted to limit government’s power in order to protect individual freedom.  And now, equality activists want to expand federal — and state — power to achieve “equality.”  This should help elucidate why conservatives should not rush to embrace this ambiguous abstraction.  And should call into question the motives of those who bury their commitment to an ever larger state under a noble-sounding ideal.

RELATED:  Over at Powerline quoting Steven den Beste, Scott Johnson offers a unified theory of left-wing causes:

Isn’t it interesting that no matter what the current global crisis is, according to leftists, the solution is always the same: a benevolent world dictatorship of the enlightened elite, and mass transfer of wealth from rich nations to poor nations.

*ADDENDUM: Nine of the ten amendments which constitute the Bill of Rights use the words “no”, “nor”, and/or “not”, all preventing the government from depriving individuals of their life, liberty and property.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Lori Heine nails it:

There is only one way that a powerful, external force can make everybody equal — and that is by making them slaves. [Read more…]

“Gay Dog” Barred from Restaurant

by

Oh come on… like I COULD make this stuff up! (h/t – Mark Steyn)

An Adelaide restaurant that refused a blind man entry because a waiter thought his guide dog was “gay” has been ordered to apologise and pay compensation.

Ian Jolly was told he could not take guide dog Nudge into the Thai Spice last May because a member of staff objected, The Sunday Mail reported.

The restaurant’s owners said a misunderstanding had arisen between Jolly’s female companion and a waiter who understood the woman “to be saying she wanted to bring a gay dog into the restaurant”.

“The staff genuinely believed that Nudge was an ordinary pet dog which had been desexed to become a gay dog,” the owners said in a statement to South Australia’s Equal Opportunity Tribunal.

The tribunal on Friday ordered the restaurant to pay Jolly $1500 and offer him a written apology for discriminating against him on the grounds of disability.

Actually, I’d like to find out this technique to “desex” a dog and make it a “gay dog”.  I actually think there is a business opportunity here….

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Confronting the Leftist Idea of “Equality”

by

Mark Levin’s new book, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, arrived just in time.  Last week, I wondered how “equality” had become the watchword for the gay movement and engaged in a spirited discussion in the comments section on the values on the founders’ notion of the concept.

I had always believed the founders’ focus was on liberty, freedom, with a concern for equal rights.  Their concern for equal rights was a response to the privileges of class, then inherent in the British system.  Levin understands how today’s left has twisted the notion of equality to serve their statist ends.  And given the political make-up of the gay groups, it’s pretty clear they have borrowed that idea of equality.

In short, Levin gets it:

The primary principle around which the Statist organizes can be summed up in a single word–equality.

Equality, as understood by the Founders, is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to acquire and retain the property he creates through his own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law.  Moreover, equality should not be confused with perfection, for man is also imperfect, making his application of equality, even in the most just society, imperfect.  Otherwise, inequality is the natural state of man in the sense that each individual is born unique in all his human characteristics.  Therefore, equality and inequality, properly comprehended, are both engines of liberty.

The Statist, however, misuses equality to pursue uniform economic and social outcomes.  He must continuously enhance his power at the expense of self-government and violate the individual’s property rights at the expense of individual liberty, for he believes that through persuasion, deception, and coercion he can tame man’s natural state and man’s perfection can, therefore, be achieved in Utopia.  The Statist must claim the power to make that which is unequal equal an that which is imperfect perfect.  That is the hope the Statist offers, if only the individual surrenders himself to the all-powerful state.  Only then can the impossible be made possible.

Levin helps summarize why I fear then notion of “equality” when on the lips of gay activists.  Most of them have a background in left-wing political movements and show a commitment to the Democratic party and its leftist ideology.  They readily turn to the state to seek solutions to problems, real and imagined, which confront our community.

I’ve only read 18 pages, barely 10% of Levin’s book and I’m already hungry for more.  this new book may well be a manifesto for the coming conservative resurgence.