have a better idea, instead of wanting to
restrict my right to free speech. Why
don't you skip over my postings. Seriously , I apologise for
the typos (I am using an iPod--it's the pits
for typing anything of length) When I do post
I do try (in most cases, to give another perspective
on things) I learn from others as I hope
others learn from me.
At no time and place have I ever suggested a restriction on your "right to free speech"; all I said, and I stand by it in its entirety, is that before you attempt to engage in a topic about which you admittedly "know nothing" that you take the time required to form educated opinions before tapping away furiously at the touch-screen on your iPhone/iPod.
This isn't Grindr, you know.
As for perspective, I'm gonna break with most of my pals here at LPSG regarding the terms "gay conservative" and "gay Republican", because even here in the US, the terms are by no means synonymous. And I have had the honor and privilege of actually interacting with/becoming friends with people from across the political and sexual spectrum at the same time.
First up is someone mentioned by VB, whom you may never heard of but who has been widely influential in American politics, both sexual and otherwise, for decades. His name is
Andrew Sullivan, whom I met frequently at a gay happy-hour institution in Boston (where everything's an institution) called
Fritz. When we first met he was still a grad student at Harvard, and his voice was still lush and full with an English accent, having been born in
Surrey.
We maintained an amicable distance as occasional bar acquaintances from the mid-80s through the mid-90s, the latter part while serving as Editor for The New Republic. He was (and still is) brilliant, impassioned, stubborn and head-strong; he also, at one time, was devilishly sexy, though that's waned considerably over time, IMO. As he's always favored big, hairy guys, I never impressed him physically, so without the impediment of sexual tension, would engage in philosophical discussions on a pair of barstools in the late afternoon over some beers.
He was a swirling mass of contradictions and paradoxes, which infuriated most people who insist in black/white dichotomies, but which I tolerated in various degrees because I, myself, was nothing but a bundle of conflicts and paradoxes (still am, though we've both mellowed with age). He's a gay Catholic and a
gay Thatcherite Tory, which seemed like irreconcilable internal inconsistencies, but argued persuasively that only the individual has the right to self-identify: externally imposed labels were (and remain) meaningless to him.
As I grew up feeling the same way about labels (though nothing else in his system of beliefs), we'd argue but always in the context of debate. It's not surprising that his credentials as a grad-student at Harvard dwarfed mine as a local HS graduate, but I scored enough blows to get him thinking more often than not. What I found distasteful in the extreme were the personal attacks, occasionally physical (after a couple of beers) that he'd endure speaking his opinions where he was clearly a political minority.
Of course, if he hadn't been so smug, arrogant and condescending (with heavy touches of a willfully blind disingenuousness), he'd have found himself the object of ridicule and contempt much lass often. But no one could say that his views lacked education or personal experience, and, though occasionally deeply flawed (from my perspective), his POV did have some power and resonance.
Being a Brit, he has no allegiance to any American political party, and despite being very much a small-c conservative, supported the candidacies of both Clinton and Obama (as well as Reagan and both Bushes) in a verbal way: he cannot vote here. His blog remains one of my chief sources fro information on the web; even when I disagree with him politically or philosophically (often), I find his choice of subject enthralling and his eloquence stirring (if not always persuasive).
Next up in a Blue Dog Dem here in FtL who would be a Republican in Massachusetts, or at least a very conservative Independent, named Joey. I will not repeat his last name as he remains, essentially, a private person despite his encyclopedic knowledge of HIV/AIDS issues both in FL and nationally, where he is a recognized expert. He's a big honcho here at one of the AIDS Service Organizations (ASOs) and is one of the most realistic and pragmatic people whom I've ever met.
But on issue after issue, he's so totally Blue Dog that, were the Republican party to cease with its using LGBTs and a wedge (and remove opposition to marriage equality as one of its core principles), he'd swap over in a heartbeat. He is in alignment with the GOP on 70% of their principles regarding fiscal issues as they are claimed (if not as they were carried out over the last 10 years) and, excluding the overtly religious overtones of their social policies, aligned with most of them as well. He is not a liberal in any sense of the term (except classical 19th Century Liberalism). There's not a recognizably progressive bone in his body.
Yet he is completely, utterly, absolutely gay.
The third is a former employer named Brandon, who is the managing partner of a very successful political consulting company based in Washington DC. His business partner was part of Jesse Helm's staff toward the end of his tenure as Senator; the are both unabashed Republicans who came of age believing the Reagan's "Big Tent" era. Though his partner (whom he loves like a sister) is reactionary and occasionally shockingly so, Brandon is the very soul of moderate Republicanism.
They are both extremely intelligent, affable and deeply involved/engaged in the "inside-the-beltway" hardball of partisan politics. For his part, Brandon still believes in the separate-but-almost-equal concept of Domestic Partnerships which he believes will eliminate the opposition of federal recognition of long-term gay relationships ("Marriage" he feels, is too much a hot-button term freighted with religious connotations), for instance. In most ways, his views regarding assimilationism makes my skin crawl. But he puts his money where his mouth is regarding HIV/AIDS care and the newly-reformed ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). He came out after much soul-searching, divorcing his high-school sweetheart-wife while still in grad school and has been unapologetically out-and-proud ever since.
FWIW, he feels that the biggest challenges facing the Republican party are the Tea Party (which he rightfully recognizes as Populist Know-Nothing-ism better suited to
WJ Bryan than 21st Century conservatism) and the undue influence of religious fundamentalism, which he feels is used as a mask behind which to hide bigotry, much as the Bible was used to justify slavery.
Brandon feels that the best way to effectuate change is from the inside, not the outside. I respect his mind (and extremely sardonic sense of humor) and count him as among the very few people IRL whom I know to be a friend. There's not a self-loathing bone in his body, though there is definitely a kind of willful blindness that occasionally prevents him from seeing how entrenched and seemingly-permanently the doctrine of God, Guns & Gays have twisted his political party.
On a side-note (because he's not gay),
Will Wilkerson has recently parted ways with the Cato Institute after a series of disputes over how best to fit real Libertarianism into the rubric of American political discourse: he wasn't doctrinaire enough
Here's a taste.
