They're here! They're queer! So why won't conservatives deal with them?
By Gord Gekko
web
posted November 1996
I have spoken on the subject of the gay political lobby in the past in
other media. My opposition to many of their messages is as resolute now
as it was back then. It seems though, that this opposition has been translated
by some as opposition to gays and lesbians as well. I have never answered
those attacks because anyone with the faculty of thought can separate
the splinter movement from the people and see what I was talking about.
Recently I have been studying the gay movement in relation to the conservative
movement and realized that we are committing a breach of our own beliefs.
Imagine a movement that is asking for the consideration of being able
to live their lives without society poking their noses into them. A group
which in the past has faced government disallowance of their lifestyle.
A group that which today faces hurdles in simple day to day living. That
describes the gay community quite well, but it also describes other communities
that conservatism has championed. Why then are not conservatism and the
gay community a better match?
Unfortunately our movement has tied many of our rational principles to
irrational support. We are the movement of capitalism, but we try to promote
it by arguing how capitalism helps the poor, not how capitalism rewards
those of productive ability. We are the movement of freedom, but many
of us deny freedoms because some religious document or person told them
it's not moral to practice this freedom. We believe in rational justice,
but spin that justice to reflect so-called community standards.
While it may be unpalatable to many, the conservative movement must start
supporting rational gay leaders. Our aims are often the same. We both
preach individualism. We both are wary of government influence in our
lives. If you will permit me to play with stereotypes, gays are often
fiscally conservative and hard on crime. The problem? Each is suspicious
of the other. Gays, because conservative's have given them little
reason to be supportive; and conservative's because of the former's
traditional support for the left.
Take the Republican Party in the United States. For years Rich Tafel has
run an organization called the Log Cabin Republicans. It is a group of
gay Republicans. It is also a group that has received the cold shoulder
from the party since its inception. During the Republican National Convention
in San Diego, the group found it hard to meet with any prominent Republican.
Is conservatism so strong in the United States that the Republicans can
throw away support? Ask Bob Dole in a few weeks if a potential 2-3 per cent of
the vote would have been somewhat useful.
And how could gays lose by supporting conservatives? In the United States
gays contributed time, money and votes to Bill Clinton. Result? The people
who supported the gay agenda are the establishment and gays are ignored.
Don't ask? Don't Tell? Don't vote for Clinton again! Here
in Canada, the federal Liberals are not implementing a risky gay rights
bill not because they are doing the right thing, but because they are
afraid of alienating a public already angry about the G.S.T. debacle,
firearms registry, among others. What have gays received from the leftists
and liberals? Slogans. Educated conservatives have no problems with gays
and are worthy allies. Liberals homogenize their "oppressed"
constituencies (because according to your average leftist, all minorities,
whether cultural, racial or otherwise, think alike), make nice speeches
and do nothing.
The gay community too has committed some errors. Many have politicized
a lifestyle, making it then properly debatable on moral grounds by those
opposed. Others call for government protection, not realizing that it's
always executed poorly. Still more call for recognition of gay marriages
as equal to those of heterosexual marriages, making two mistakes; the
first believing they need the approval of the state and society to marry,
and the second the demand for spousal benefits. If I am opposed to the
government subsidizing heterosexual marriages, why would I be in support
of the subsidization of gay marriages?
Others ostracize gays for being conservatives, calling them traitors to
their lifestyle. Tafel's group was called the Uncle Tom's Cabin
Club by Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank. (Quick, name three things
Barney Frank has done for gays besides having his house used as a service
for prostitutes?) Other gays have mocked Tafel, and people like him, as
a "Jew working for Nazis". (Quick, besides running through churches
shouting "We're Here, We're Queer! And We're Not Gonna
Take It!", what have gays accomplished by working through the liberal
political groups?
Regardless though, both movements can coexist peacefully. We may not approve
of each other's complete platform, but concerning the main ideas of individualism
and freedom, both movements are ideally suited to each other. Even if
gays rebuff our entreaties, it is still a moral obligation for us to fight
those who illogically oppose gays.
If you cannot bring yourself to supporting some gay issues, because of
whatever other obligations you have, I can understand it. After all, most
gays look at conservatives as right-wing extremists only interested in
burning them at the stake or sending them all to Fire Island and keeping
them there, a perception both right and wrong. But seriously consider
simply combating the extremist gay political lobby, the one that believes
their rights can only come about by infringing upon others. The collectivist
gays is an opponent we can all agree on.
If you agree with me, then work towards educated your fellow conservatives
to the fact that rational gays are not our enemies. Work to the conclusion
of moderate policies that don't cow tow to the extremist gay leadership,
but honestly deal with the fact that gays are a part of society and have
the right to live as any other human being. Only be recognizing that fact
can the conservative movement come closer to really being the party of
liberty and freedom. 