The Gay Agenda: An All American Agenda
The Gay Agenda is an American Agenda (or, why I don’t like Gay Republicans)
I like to think I’m a fair person. But I do admit one bias.
I don’t like gay Republicans.
I don’t dislike them personally — although I did date one for two years and the experience was fraught with political tension, the kind that blossomed into a spectacular explosion of awkwardness when Obama was elected President. Talk about a house divided.
I just don’t get how you can be gay and a Republican. For me the two are like oil and water, like black shoes and a brown belt, like me and any Andrew Lloyd Webber musical.
They just don’t go together in a way that makes any sense.
My take is simple: Until the Republican Party no longer runs on an anti-gay platform, it doesn’t matter how many times gay Repubs are invited to conservative conferences or how many times crazy bigot types get booed or how many times Republican candidates profess being “not anti-gay” without doing much to reverse the anti-gay platform, or how many times Republican types say, “not all of us are anti-gay” but continue to support and not denounce those in the party who are very, VERY anti-gay. Supporting the Republican Party is a detriment to the gay community. Supporting the Republican Party as a gay person is working against your own best interests and the interests of a community of people who call you their own.
And that makes me grumpy towards gay Republicans.
Not long ago, a Facebook friend of mine tussled with me over some comment I made, a general “I don’t get you Gay Repubs” thing. Here’s the response I got, from the Facebooker I tussled with:
“Again, we [gay Republicans] don’t have a “gay agenda.” We want what is fair for all people. I also find it to be appalling that someone would base their political decisions on what is best for themselves, hence the “gay agenda,” rather than what is best for the country, and therefore what is best for the masses.”
Wrong, Facebooker. Oh so wrong. because the “gay agenda” is, in fact, an American agenda, and one that is for the good of the country at large.
First, I think it’s problematic that any gay person would confiscate the language of the gay rights opponents and use the term “gay agenda” (note the quotes included). I mean, I know this kind of stuff works with people who don’t know gay folks or have some misunderstanding of our community, but GAY people using the terminology and the connotation? Yikes.
So, Facebooker, let’s unpack the “gay agenda” and see just how self-serving it is. (Hint: it’s not really that self-serving after all.)
These days, the gay rights movement is hinging on a few key issues: marriage equality, the repeal of DADT, the end of employment discrimination and gay-inclusive adoption / family laws. Tangential to these (though no less important) is the issue of HIV prevention/care. There are other gay rights issues (specifically those dealing with transgender issues) but for the sake of this argument, let’s stick with the first four tenets.
Marriage equality — Marriage equality doesn’t just help gay people. Allowing gay couples to enter into civil marriage works for the country as a whole on a few levels. First, for small government lovers, marriage equality is the smallest amount of government action to protect the relationships of gay couples. Civil unions, domestic partnerships and the like are NEW institutions (read: more government) and all those anti-gay marriage amendments are more government, not less. The conservative solution is civil marriage equality. And there are economic benefits to gay marriage — it means gay weddings. And in a time of economic crisis, the creation or sustainability of small businesses (the kind that would be touched by wedding needs) is a good thing. More weddings, more business. And, in a larger scale, marriage does something important for the State: it ensures that individuals will have a network to care for them in times of crisis outside of the State. This, for small-government minds, should be a damn good thing. By allowing all possible couples who desire civil marriage to marry, you’re not just helping gay folks out. You’re doing good for a lot of other people and the State as well.
Repealing DADT – This one’s an easy one. We’re at war. But our current policy tosses out viable, willing servicepeople simply because they’re gay. According to Defense Department statistics, 428 troops were dismissed under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law in 2009. More than 13,500 troops have been kicked out of the service under the law since 1994, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. 13,000 troops removed from duty because they were gay. Repealing DADT doesn’t just help gay folks. It bolsters our ability to fill out our service ranks with capable soldiers. And national security is an important issue to this country right now, no? Getting rid of DADT helps us protect our country better.
End of employment discrimination — Were I not in a company that has an existing non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation, my bosses could read this blog and fire me. End of story. On the whole, gay people are not protected from being fired from their jobs because of their sexuality. Why is this important beyond gay people? First, employment nondiscrimination will likely not affect those with high-paying jobs in major companies. it’ll affect lower-income folks in rural communities (know some gay folks who are scared to be out at work? I doubt their running a Fortune 500 company.) For these communities, employment is essential — life is paycheck to paycheck and the myth of the “affluent gay” doesn’t apply. Protecting these jobs ensures that these workers won’t have to rely on governmental safety nets like unemployment benefits or welfare (which is a very conservative hope, no?) In this economy, protecting the employed is crucial. Ending employment discrimination against gay people is a way to do that.
Inclusive adoption / family laws — Gay families exist. Yet they’re by and large unprotected as other families are. (This of course goes hand in hand with marriage equality.) By ensuring that family laws include gay families, we strengthen the protections for the CHILDREN in gay families — and that’s what conservatives are all about, no? Family values? And inclusive adoption laws further a conservative goal as well. By opening up the prospective pool of adoptive parents for children, the chances that children will leave the system and enter families are greater. And we need to get more children out of the system and off the State’s support and into loving families. This is good for the kid AND good for the State.
See, Facebooker. I’m not thinking of myself. These issues, these fights — they’re good for everyone. (It’s the lovely thing about equality and justice. They pay dividends for all, not just those who are being made equal). And these issues, resolved, would further some very conservative aims.
So, why would you support a party that’s speaking out of both sides of its mouth? And why would you support a party that does it while limiting your individual possibilities?
Comments