Washington’s One-Sided Gay War
In his recent book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, Jonah Goldberg observes how frequently liberals, even those in the media, dub conservatives fascists. We gay conservatives face similar name-calling from our liberal peers, even those in the gay media.
Our gay peers, however, don’t limit themselves to calling us fascists. They also call us the equivalent of African-American Klansmen or Jewish Nazis (and think themselves original when they use those tired and inaccurate analogies). “The adjective they use most frequently to describe us is “self-hating” and the noun, “hypocrite.”
True to form, Charles Kaiser begins his piece, “Washington’s Gay War,” in Out magazine (kind of a gay equivalent of Vanity Fair) referencing “an ancient hypocrisy at the heart of the GOP.” While he may be fascinated by this ancient legend, he doesn’t devote much time to the present-day reality of gay Republicans (except as viewed through the lens of gay Democrats).
For example, he discusses Terry Dolan, head of the National Conservative Political Action Committee in the 1980s, but doesn’t mention former Arizona Congressman Jim Kolbe, who served in Congress until his retirement two years ago. The former has been dead for over twenty years while the latter served as a House subcommittee chair in Republican congresses, even after coming out as a gay in 1996. He even addressed the Republican National Convention in 2000 — four years after coming out.
Nor does Kaiser mention any elected openly gay Republican official, name any current gay staffer for a Republican Congressman or Senator, reference the Log Cabin Republicans 0r gay conservative blogs (of which we are one of many), or even take note of Mary Cheney, the openly lesbian daughter of the Republican Vice-President of the United States. When President Bush declared victory in the 2004 election, Mary appeared onstage with her partner Heather Poe.
In fact, Charles Kaiser didn’t quote any gay Republican directly. In a follow up piece, he claimed to have interviewed gay Republicans, but acknowledged that he didn’t quote them.
In the original piece, he pulled quotes from other news articles from Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon and David Duncan, aide to former Ohio Congressman Bob Ney. This would be fine if he were offering commentary (as one of my readers noted in commenting to my original Gay Patriot piece on the article).
Kaiser did, however, talk to Barney Frank, an openly gay Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts and to someone else whom he identifies as a “Democratic political consultant.”
He didn’t just talk to Democrats. He devoted the last quarter of his piece to an interview with openly gay Washington Post reporter Jose Antonio Vargas. A Vargas article was the source of his quote from David Duncan.
Kaiser takes everything Vargas says at face value. For example, Vargas claims, “If you come out on the Hill and you’re a Republican, you lose power.” Yet, he fails to provide a single example of a staffer losing his job when his GOP boss learns of his homosexuality.
Had Kaiser contacted me, a real gay Republican who once worked in Washington and was not “out” when I worked on the Hill, I could have not only offered my perspective on why I then kept my sexuality to myself (at odds with his theory), but could have also identified one gay GOP staffer who did lose his job because of his sexuality.
But, there’s a twist to that story. That elected Republican had kept the staffer on even after a leading social conservative in his state asked legislators to fire him. The official asked his longtime staffer to step down only as he considered running for national office.
This seems to be the exception which proves the rule. Numerous other gay staffers kept their jobs even after their Republican bosses learned they were gay.
But, he didn’t even need talk to me to learn about such staffers. In the very article from which Kaiser drew the quote about David Duncan, Vargas writes about Robert L. Traynham, Communications Director for then-Republican Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (the article’s date is October 20, 2006 during the Mark Foley scandal).
Even though Santorum was one of the most socially conservative members of the United States Senate, he did not fire Traynham when he learned he was gay, calling him “an ‘exemplary’ employee and ‘trusted friend.”
Trayhnam is just one of many examples of GOP staffers keeping their jobs even after their conservative bosses learn of their sexuality. Kaiser might have learned about them had he listened to gay Republicans who work (or have worked) on the Hill or are active in GOP politics in our nation’s capital. They would offer an entirely different perspective on the reality of being a gay Republican in contemporary Washington.
It seems, however, Kaiser really wasn’t interested in the perspective of gay Republicans. A Log Cabin’s alert e-mailed to its members (posted here), generated enough correspondence to warrant, in the words of Out editor Aaron Hicklin, a “response from the author.” That response is telling.
In his response, Kaiser claims his piece was not “an article about gay Republicans,” but about “gay political wars in Washington.” That explanation does not excuse Kaiser from using the words of Democrats to define gay Republicans. If he’s writing about a war, he’s presenting the views of only one party to the conflict.
Perhaps, as Kaiser contends, former Ney staffer David Duncan really does believe “that there’s nothing wrong with working for someone with homophobic positions, if gay bashing is the price you have to pay to keep a Republican Congressman in office.” Shouldn’t it then behoove him to ask Duncan (and other gay staffers for conservative Congressman) how they could square their sexuality with their bosses’ supposedly “homophobic positions.”
It seems, however, Kaiser has a very liberal interpretation of gay bashing, defining it as not supporting the legislative agenda he favors.
Had he talked to gay GOP staffers, he would get some interesting answers. Some would offer libertarian perspectives while others would cite their own efforts to lobby their bosses. He would find a few who chose to remain silent for other reasons, some not laudatory.
The point is that had he talked to gay Republicans and listened to them, he would have found that many of us differ from his jaundiced view. He may even have discovered a hypocrite or two. But, because he only referenced those gay Republicans who fit his image of what a gay Republican was, he couldn’t offer an accurate portrayal of gay Republicans – or of their role in what he calls “Washington’s gay wars.”
Like all too many gay reporters covering gay Republicans, Charles Kaiser would rather stick to his narrative about our hypocrisy than talk to us about our political views. If he dared have that conversation with us, he might learn that while there are a handful of hypocrites among us, they are the exception rather than the rule. We are as diverse as the gay community itself. And we got involved in politics for a variety of reasons.
In the end, because his narrative of our hypocrisy replaces a genuine interest in our reality, he can’t see beyond his own narrow view of those gay people who hold political views at odds with his own.
B. Daniel Blatt blogs at GayPatriot.
Shame on liberals and democrats for pointing out that Bush’s gay marriage ban amendment was anti-gay or the hypocrisy of Dick Cheney’s policy views on gay considering how gay his family is. Speaking of Lynn Cheney she really is a true American hero who should be beloved by gays as she has advanced all of their issues. This guy is right to say gays should be republican afterall it means all the sex in bathrooms with pages a guy could want and you can still pretend you are married and straight.
Not being gay, I cannot speak for their reasons to remain “in the closet” as they say. However, losing their jobs, regardless of political party affiliation, is a pretty good reason to keep quiet. That some are gay & do not want that exposed, is “their” business. Exposing them has more to do with the vindictive minds of nasty people than it does them being gay.
The point of the writer here is well made. You cannot speak for a group of people, unless you are one of them, or have at least asked them what they feel, why they do what they do, etc. Claiming a position or knowledge based solely on your own experience exposes that individual as the “real” hypocrite!
I do have a question, that I have never gained a satisfactory answer for. If someone chooses to proclaim “gayness”, advertising sexual predilictions as a part of their identity, shouldn’t they be also willing to explain what they prefer? Who does what to where? After all, as a heterosexual, everyone knows what I do, with whom and with what. It just seem fair, somehow.
@Andrew
No ban of “gay marriage” is anti-gay. The ban would keep straight men from marrying each other or straight women as well. One could just as falsely call a “gay marriage” proponent as anti-marriage seeing as how the thousands of years old, pan-humanic, pan-cultural meaning of the word marriage has been the union between a man and a woman. You can’t redefine a universal institution and call yourself a proponent.
@JonasCord
Why do so many men who confidently declare their own heterosexuality display such a grubby, snuffling curiousity about what Teh Gays get up to in private? Perhaps people who “proclaim gayness” (what a curious turn of phrase) don’t see their homosexuality as solely about sexual preferences but also other stuff like, y’know, love (between a mananaman!), and so don’t feel that it’s necessary to explain their sex lives to you.
Have you asked though? Maybe if you met a gay he would be willing to tell you what he prefers. Or if not, you see that thing you’re sitting in front of? Yup, that’s right, the infinite pornography machine (otherwise known as a computer with internet access). Well, if you really want to know what they prefer then it shouldn’t take you too long to find out if you do a quick google search.
Kind regards
Straight Ma…
-sorry-
*adopts gruffer voice*
STRAIGHT MAN PETE
If you believe in freedom of race, religion, and sexuality from government intervention, then technically you’re politically conservative. Make a law to make infringing on ones rights to get a job, a loan, a home, ect, and enforce the law-end of story. It’s the liberals that are into exploitation and perversion of one’s rights and perception of how one should live ‘properly’ by their standards.
If you are obsessed with people of any sexuality’s behavior behind closed doors, it’s your own personal issue, either mind your own business or explore what you are [i]apparently[/i] interested in, just like anything else in life. Not sure why when referring to someone being ‘gay’ it immediately means the sexual act and nothing else. People who are ‘hetero’ in a relationship surely don’t add up only the sexual moments it’s a state of mind-a lifestyle, not a sex act. There are plenty of gay celibate people in this world . I am personally heterosexual, but if I were curious about it I would simply pursue it like any other ‘desire’ that I have that does not hurt anyone, and not care what anyone else thinks about it. If you think someone elses’ preferences have anything to do with your life, it is YOU that has the issue.
Liberal/socialism is the anti-freedom, although they wrap it up in such a pretty package people get a little confused sometimes(about 99% of self-proclaimed liberals, actually)….
It seems to me that around us, from children to the old, we are surrounded by gays. These our friends, our loved ones, our children. We know many truly good people who just want to be loved, and free to love. How can we hate our friends, loved ones, our children? It is the truth of human existence that we fear what we don’t understand. They are gay. It is O.K. Why would they CHOOSE something they fear will make those THEY love, hate or abandon them? Just because some religious rambling says so? We must follow our hearts, our souls. Love our people. ALL our people. It is so very important we do so. Or we will never be one as a people. Stop your child fearing you. Let them be the only thing they feel they can. Show them how to love themselves and to love in life honorably, with caring, and instill in them the future. This world is so many, with many voices screaming to be heard, when all these people want is love. Let them love, give them that right.
Curious. Mr Blatt, not trying to hijack your blogpost, so feel free to edit as required.
If homosexuality is something O.K. (even if a large number of religiously conservative, not necessarily Christian folk think otherwise) and they should be loved (I agree that they should be shown ‘agape’ love, yes), then why should not those who disagree be shown the same ‘love’? If I disapprove of homosexuality, and someone disapproves of my disapproval, shouldn’t we be shown the same leeway, the same considerations? Notwithstanding ‘moral equivalence’, of course.
However, this is not the case. I am not anti-homosexual, just anti-homosexuality. Two different positions, no pun intended. And yet I find that the very same people ‘preaching’ diversity and tolerance do not tolerate my stance. Indeed curious.
Mr Blatt points out the obvious; the so-called ‘gay agenda’ is nothing of the sort, having (like so many other well-intentioned movements) been hijacked by people hell-bent on politicising it to death. Why this is not obvious to so many others is quite beyond my understanding.
My personal stance; get rid of ALL sexual innuendo in our public space. Let sexual matters recede to the private arena, where most people will agree they belong. No more blatant gay pride marches, BDSM fairs and festivals, Planned Promiscuity events. No using girls in bikinis to sell cars. Or beers, for that matter.
About choice: funny thing, though. Why do people choose alcohol? Or hard drugs? Or adultery? Because it makes them feel good for a while before dropping them into misery? No? Yet it starts with a chice – Yes or No.
You cannot say that people will always choose the ‘right’ path, or that if you do something that does not seem rational, it MUST be because you can’t help it, because obviously you would NEVER choose to do it. Lots of people make stupid choices and decisions all the time. Every now and then, with dire consequences.
Anyways, back to your scheduled programming.
When people call their opponents fascists, it means nothing. Fascism as a word lost meaning decades ago, but since Jonah cranked out his partisan screed, all the poor oppressed cons have been babbling about liberal fascists, as if the “Politics of Meaning” was anything more than an empty label.
You can posture all you want about being anti-homosexuality but not anti-homosexual or loving the sinner but hating the sin, the fact is a good chunk of the GOP and cons in gerneral hate gays. Does this make them fascists, no, it just means they hate gays. How many times have I heard cons ridicule Andrew Sullivan about his gayness, demean Nancy Pelosi for attending a gay pride parade or call into Alan Colmes and scream some banal juvenile queer baiting remark, I have lost track. But hating gays is acceptable amongst many cons, and please don’t ridcule and insult me for pointing out this fact. This is part of their ignorant, John Wayne movie fantasy warrior culture and despising anything that isn’t as tough as the some brutal Marine they imagine they are.
“…No using girls in bikinis to sell cars. Or beers, for that matter.”
Gregory! This is the United States you’re talking about!
I’m a wicked homosexual, and even I know that.
Yes, but I come from Malaysia, and neither beer nor bikini-clad girls are advertised (or used to advertise) on TV.
So, like I said, it’s time to put up or shut up, you know? There’s plenty of hypocritical nonsense anywhere you look, and while there’s a whole lot more of it on the left side, Javelin has a (very small, but nonetheless) point in that there are *some* righties who out and out hate gays (and shouldn’t the gays examine why? It’s not as if ‘I’ hate ‘you’ because ‘I’m’ afraid ‘you’ll’ turn ‘me’ gay, it’s more like because ‘you’ disgust ‘me’ and ‘you’ get way too much in ‘my’ face and so when ‘you’ do that ‘I’ want to punch ‘your’ lights out). Of course, those who *really* hate gays are Islamists, who basically will stone and hang you for gay actions (but that’s threadjacking and I don’t swing that way).
Best thing – get rid of the sexualisation of *everything* It’s (life, I mean) not all about appendage slotting into orifice. Mind you, I’m not advocating new laws to do this cleanup – just that IMHO, the community could do with some of it.
Javelin: A bit of projection there, I daresay. But why would I want to break your little fantasy? Would be like herding ferrets.
I will be the first to admit that pornography is a blight on culture. And individuals. Not excepting ANYBODY.
It is too late for America as was Pompeii.In 1973 the
Supreme Court allowed Abortion now in the Millions.We
will never know if they were Homo or Hetero.But any nation that kills it”s own comes under great Judgement.In the Book of Romans we will find out who
is not going to Heaven and Homosexuals whether in
civil unions or not are going to Hell they will be in charge of the fire with the fornicators and adulterers.The fact is that the facts are not discussed by the liberal media because they know there fate if they in fact are quilty.It used to be we could tell the
difference between democrats and republicans but this has
alarmingly is closer each day.Our nation was founded
on Christian Principles but not any-more.