It was a pleasant surprise to learn the GOP pulled 31% of the gay vote in the last election. When you consider that not all gay people might be open with their orientation, even with pollsters, the numbers might be more, or less, or roughly the same, but no matter how you slice it, such numbers are an obvious sign of growth. It's even more surprising when you consider the rap on Republicans and the criticisms aimed at them, some of which are not without merit.
One example is the failed GOP Senate candidate from Colorado, Ken Buck. When I heard him say, on Meet The Press, that being gay is a choice, I waited for a follow-up, some kind of explanation that would put the statement in context. When none was forthcoming, I almost came to the conclusion that Buck was being blackmailed to throw the election.
You don't have to be gay to realize how nutty such a statement sounds. All it takes is an exercise in logic. I am straight, and I imagine I came to be straight in the same manner every other straight person came to be straight. One day, I got a full blown erection-over a woman. In my case it was an incidental woman model in an old Matt Helm movie. She uttered no lines in the film, I don't recall her name, she was just a model in what if I remember correctly was see-through lingerie.
There was no choice involved. I didn't sit there thinking, you know I think I'd better make a decision. Do I want to experience sexual desire over Dean Martin, or over this random female bit player without a speaking part who just happens to look hot?
Some time after this, I experienced my first wet dream, involving a female classmate at my elementary school. The strange thing about that was, this was a girl with whom I was friendly, but not all that close, nor was I particularly attracted to her consciously. My subconscious mind was probably telling me, this is available to you if you just make your move. Unfortunately, I was not sufficiently skilled in the art of dream interpretation, or for that matter much of anything else, and before long that window of opportunity slipped away. I just forgot about it, and her, as she slipped more into the background of my school life-such as it was.
For whatever reason which I no longer remember clearly, I chose not to pursue the matter. But the initial attraction, at least, had nothing to do with choice. And that brings me back to Ken Buck.
I think what Buck really meant was not that people choose whether or not to become gay, they choose as to whether or not to act on those impulses. If that is what he meant, he should have said so, but of course, even this stance brings with it a load of questions as to the ability of any given person to be a fair and impartial representative of their constituencies and their issues and concerns.
Republicans should really avoid this political hot potato, because no matter what they say or do they are going to offend somebody. They either come across like they are pandering to one group or the other, or they sound like a would-be theocrat, one who is ruled more by their religious philosophy than an adherent to any kind of coherent policy view.
To say the states should deal with the issue of gay marriage may sound to some like an exercise in avoiding a tough issue, but in reality that is the legitimate federalist approach. There is no excuse to allow for yet more federal government intrusion into what should be a state prerogative. Sure, you can infer a constitutional right to gay marriage, as easily as you can infer a "right to life" for the unborn, but its nebulous at best.
Bear in mind, although 31% of gays voted Republican, this has got to be seen as a national average. What do you want to bet that in Colorado, the numbers weren't quite so good for Ken Buck? Now I'm not suggesting that the GOP simply pander to prospective gay voters in the hopes of improving their share of that voter demographic. For one thing, the fact that they got 31% to begin with proves that is unnecessary.
Still, there are some things they can and should do. The Defense of Marriage Act is a cynical piece of legislation that should be repealed, as it is just one more federal intrusion on the prerogative of the states no better or worse than any similar measure from the other end of the spectrum. By the same token, any kind of federal law mandating the states provide for gay marriage rights, or any such decree by judicial fiat, is similarly inadvisable, and frankly unacceptable.
A simple party platform affirming the rights of gay Americans as equal citizens, with rights neither inferior nor superior to other Americans, as predicated by any simple reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, entitled to all the rights and protections of other Americans, should suffice. This would not have to imply a support for gay marriage or adoption, things that, again, should be decided at the state level.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid even this relatively minor move would be met with howls of protest by many of the rank-and-file traditional Republican voters, so its probably never going to happen. In addition, some of the more radical gay activists would view it as a transparent attempt to gain support, a paper tiger with no teeth and with bleeding gums. So what else is there?
DADT is something where there can and should be room for honest and open debate, with each side of the equation receiving a fair hearing. A person's sexuality should not be an impediment to promotion in rank nor should it be a consideration of job security, but on the other hand any changes in policy should be approached with caution and respect. My own feeling is the military brass should set their own rules, with some civilian oversight. I'm reasonably sure it would turn out better than some heavy handed decree from the civilian authorities which would then be turned into a political football on both sides. It would probably come down to a ban on fraternization, which is in place anyway in general terms, and that would be the extent of it.
There are other things, but no matter what policy you approach, its going to encounter storms of protest and discontent. There's nothing you can do about that, but people should remember, gay rights and homosexuality was never an issue or a controversy until gay activists made it so. I'm sure there are many who would question that, but remember this-most of the laws against homosexuality were in place from a time when one could be prosecuted for having sex with a married woman, or for having sex out of wedlock, or for engaging in interracial sex. They were put in place during a time and place when morals and ethics were decreed by a relatively small cabal of social leaders, and those who acted against their mores were strictly stigmatized. It wasn't just gays, it was a lot of different actions that could get you ostracized by your local communities and society at large. Back in those days, if a woman or a younger girl had a child out of wedlock, she was automatically considered a whore, a tramp, and even her innocent child was considered a bastard, not quite good enough to associate with the children from the "good families".
You could also be prosecuted for engaging in anal or oral sex-even with the person with whom you were married.
So when you look at it in that context, its quite understandable there would also be laws against homosexuality. The major difference here is, not many people gave it much thought. Gays pretty much kept to themselves and kept their lifestyles secret. For one thing, they had no legal outlet such as marriage, and for another, they knew they would be despised by society at large, who out of ignorance looked at them as insane, or debauched, or in some cases possessed by unclean and malignant spirits. Homosexuality as an issue was always way, way, way back in the public consciousness-in fact it was all but nonexistent-for the simple fact gays themselves were not a part of the public consciousness. At most, they were seen as a relative handful of individuals afflicted by a sickness that led them to engage in a shameful act. In some cases it was a point of amusement. It was not all that long ago that the worse insult one man could say to another was "suck my dick" or in the case where the two parties were aware of another man's or boy's homosexual tendencies, to call the other person that gay person's name.
It's not so surprising then that when gays finally came out of the closet in the beginning, they did so with an explosive force that took no prisoners. That was certainly understandable, but there's been no letup from some quarters, and who have been the main target of their outrage? Of course, that would be the purveyors of what they see as the traditional values that have always scapegoated them as at worse evil proponents of a sick sub-culture, and at best as victims of some evil spiritual soul-destroying sickness. It's no surprise then that they haven't been inclined to support the Republican Party, whom they see as the champions of the same system that has maligned and marginalized them throughout history.
If the latest election numbers are any indication, however, they are starting to some degree to see the Democrats as cynical opportunists who are using them for their votes, but not really willing to do much beyond lip-service in the way of redressing their grievances. This is in no small part due to the fact that many of their stated aims are impractical, and also because their tactics are to many reprehensible enough it would amount to trading two votes for one in the name of justice, which is never going to happen.
But in the interim along the way to this awakening, many gays have come to see that, social considerations aside, they have as much to gain by supporting Republicans, maybe in some cases more, than they do by sticking with the Democrats. A large percentage of gays are of above average intellect and income, and like everyone else are susceptible to the allure of a lower tax rate, especially when they see how Washington has wasted money. Many as well are attracted to the more libertarian aspects of basic conservative philosophy-live and let live, another philosophy that gets little beyond lip service from the Democrats. And how can they not be attracted to the prospect of a smaller, more efficient, less intrusive government. It's one thing to look toward government as the guarantor of civil rights and equal protections under the law. It's another thing all together to want the government sticking its nose into every aspect of your life, both public and private, to the point where you are or at least feel dependent on their good graces for everything from the roof over your head to the food you eat and even the air you breathe. And this is all the more true if you are a business person or a professional of some sort who suddenly finds that a good portion of your working life is spent adhering to some mandated obligation to fill out forms, making sure every "i" is dotted and every "t" is crossed-a service that in reality you provide to them, and for which you yourself must pay, not just with the time you spend doing it, but with your own hard-earned tax dollars as well.
The question then becomes not why are so many gays suddenly supporting Republicans, but why wouldn't they?
It's now up to the Ken Bucks of the Republican Party to realize that, sometimes, its best to keep your personal beliefs to yourself, in at least some regards. This wouldn't make them any more hypocritical than the person who refrains from stating that consuming alcohol is a sin, or that the blood of Christ is the only way to salvation. You can believe that all you want, but the minute you state that in public, in the course of a run for electoral office, you run the risk of broadcasting the appearance of making a policy statement. You shouldn't be too surprised at that point if the neighborhood Hindu family decides to sit the election out, or maybe even go to the trouble to vote against you.
That's not to say you should hide your beliefs, just that you should be circumspect in how you express them, while making clear that as a public figure you have an obligation to respect and defend the constitutional rights of all your constituents, regardless of race, sex, creed, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and that, as a Republican, you intend to do so in strict adherence to a literal reading of the constitution and the Bill of Rights.
That won't be enough to win over the folks at GLAAD or any other advocates of the so-called LGBT community. It is way too easy though to look askance at the antics of the Folsom Street Fair or various other Gay Pride Parades, some of which seem purposely designed to shock the sensitivities of the traditionalists among us. We can laugh or shake our heads in dismay at the activities of groups that demand that script changes be made to movies and otherwise threaten boycotts if such demands are not met, or who purposely devote time and resources to outing closeted gays who only want to live their lives in peace and a minimum of drama, just for political effect.
When we see them acting out in outrageous ways, all but copulating in public in some cases, engaging in acts of masturbation and other lewd behaviors, while simultaneously demanding that they be accepted in our neighborhoods and communities with respect and even deference, demanding the right to marry and adopt, its easy to dismiss them as just another arm of the leftist lunatic fringe, which is in truth what they are.
But we should never make the mistake of assuming that these people speak for all gay people. The people of GOProud might now represent a minority among those gay people who are politically active, but they do represent a sizable portion of a gay community that is conservative, responsible, respectable, and deserving of our support, just as they themselves supported many Republican candidates, including Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. In some cases, their support for Republican candidates might have been enough to contribute to their victories.
By accepting them in turn, and gay people in more general terms, however, we make it clear we don't do so as just another hyphenated American interest group, but as American citizens, who just happen to be gay, yet who we recognize and affirm as having the same rights and responsibilities as any other American citizen-no more or no less.
That should be enough to make progress among not just gays, but truthfully among any demographic group who truly wants what is best for himself, his family, community, and his country.
Everything else in the way of specific policy proposals geared toward them is for the most part, with very few exceptions, mere Democrat window dressing meant to promote controversy with an aim to divide and conquer.
