Away from Bigotry

Many of my blogging friends are conservative.  And, although some of my conservative friends and colleagues are strongly in favor of gay rights and promoting the notion of marriage for all (such as Ted Olson), irrespective of sexual orientation, many are not.

Let us first stipulate:  reasonable minds can disagree on the topic of gay marriage.  After all, our very liberal president, Barack Obama, states that he is not a supporter of gay marriage.  Nevertheless, what I believe we should not do is assume that gay people are "less than".  If conservatives and Republicans want to win more elections and be able to implement the principles that are important to them, then they need a "big tent."  Conservatives who happen to be gay should not be turned away at the door.  At this year's CPAC convention, however, that is exactly what happened.  Margaret Hoover explains.

This year, GOProud, an organization that I support, is conspicuously excluded from all formal participation despite co-sponsoring the convention for the last two years.

GOProud represents gay conservatives and their allies and I’ve been honored to serve on the Advisory Council for the last two years.

Unlike me, GOProud takes no position on same-sex marriage, nor has it supported any controversial liberally gay-right’s positions.

GOProud has instead argued that gays are natural conservatives, and that limited government, free-markets, and maintaining a strong national defense are principles that serve all Americans, including gay Americans.

Some conservative groups believe that a person cannot be both conservative and gay.

They believe that traditional lives cannot be led by those who have not traditionally been accepted by society.

They have confused the principles of freedom-- tenants to which conservatives willingly subscribe--with a person’s sexual orientation, a characteristic trait over which an individual has no control.

This lack of distinction, and the prejudice that follows, represent the most despicable impulses in American politics.

There are two reasons why conservatives should not turn out gay people.  First and foremost - it's simply morally wrong.  I am not saying that "being gay" isn't morally wrong (although I strongly believe this.)  I am simply saying that we cannot reject people because we do not agree with everything about how they live their lives.

And secondly, we should not be rejecting the gay community for this important reason:  it's a helluva lot harder to win elections without them.  I truly know many gay people who embrace many of the same conservative and libertarian principles that I do - yet they cannot bring themselves to vote for candidates who essentially are telling them "you are not a worthwhile member of our society."

I have long thought that as more and more time passes, more of the bigots among us will no longer be with us.  There is evidence that youth, even strongly religious youth, are far more accepting of gay people and gay marriage than earlier generations.

I submit that we should not wait.  Let us create more of a Reagan "big tent" and allow all those who cherish values of liberty, free enterprise and personal responsibility to enter.

Comments

[Chris]

You're so close Peg, just pull up your big girl pants and let it out.

"Being gay is not morally wrong".

This may be a hard thing to say for what currently passes for a conservative, but real, original conservatives believe in letting other people live their own lives.

You can do it, I know you can. What would William F Buckley say? (although he couldn't get any votes from the modern conservatives, which is a sad thing in itself)

[Peg]

God, Chris? Aren't you able to read? I've stated (more than once) that I'm in favor of gay marriage - and - just a few paragraphs above, I stated that I strongly believe being gay is not morally wrong. Maybe try reading more closely before you tell me to "pull up my big girl pants."

And maybe ponder what the phrase "the bigots among us will no longer be with us" means, too.

Where you and I perhaps differ is that I realize it's a diverse world. In some places and among some groups, they kill those who disagree with them. I've tried for years to convince people I know that there's not a scintilla of anything wrong with being gay. Nevertheless, even if I disagree (often strongly) with others, I'm not going to exclude them from my life because we don't agree about everything.

In any case - I'm not sure what label should be afixed to my beliefs. "Libertarian" is probably closest - although it seems I am fiscally quite conservative - and socially liberal.

[Chris]

No, you said

"I am not saying that "being gay" isn't morally wrong (although I strongly believe this.) "

Maybe in some world this mean that your **are** saying it, but not in mine.

You can say it, or not say it. Pick one.

[Peg]

My point is that the CPAC people should invite groups like GOPAC and Log Cabin Republicans - irrespective of whether they think homosexuality is morally wrong or not. I do not think it's morally wrong. Some of them do.

I was not arguing that because it is incidental to my point. To most English speakers, however, I was clear about my viewpoint. Since you are having difficulties - let me make it perfectly clear. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with morality.

Clear enough now?

[J. Reed Anderson]

I don't agree with gay marriage. But, I think marriage is a religious and not a government institution. I believe in civil unions, which would give legal rights to both homo- and heterosexual couples. The many and varied sects of Christianity (and any other religion that would wish) can decide if they wish to allow homosexuals to wed. Government has no place in telling religions what the must do.

[Peg]

J. Reed - I understand that some do not (for whatever reasons) wish to accept gay marriage. Then - I think that your solution is perfectly reasonable. Have our government have laws about civil unions - and leave marriage to our private life and institutions. Either way - people should not be treated differently by our government because of their sexual orientation.

[J. Reed Anderson]

I concur.