I guess Larry Kramer and I are finally on the same ground. -AS
This brought tears of laughter to my eyes, because I was just over at my-world Bloggernista, who had posted a video of Kramer saying that Reagan had killed more people than Hitler, and I know AS has only stardust for Reagan.
Are gay-conservatives the conscience of the movement? I think the answer, so far as I can tell, is "no".
I was put onto the idea, because a few of the writers who often write with a conservative or libertarian slant, suggest it, when they write about "speaking truth to power", as does Citizen Crain, for instance. AS writes blithely about "keeping them honest" (who keeps him honest is unanswered). One essay talks about the dangers of moving away from pure issue advocacy.
A few that I've read seem to fall in for conscience-calling language, eschewing strategies of Democratic political-block politics as a kind of sellout of gay-rights, even though agitation for its own sake or premature punches have arguably brought significant backlash and in no apparent way made the road to equality any less long or arduous.
But nothing that I've read so far convinces me that many or any have a fast set of principles that might be construed as the hardcore conscience of the movement. A few, in fact, seem to have mercenary or quasi-mercenary attitudes that are inimical to a notion like "gay-rights martyr". There is always more to read, however.
Nor do organizations necessarily promote single mindedness. One gay-supportive organization's website that I read encourages GLBT folks not to be a single-issue voters, as I recall.
Recently, AS writes:
Readers know that I am not now and never have been a Republican, that I endorsed Kerry in 2004 and the Democrats last fall. When I endorsed Bush in 2000, I did so while fully conceding that Gore was better on gay issues. But I'm not just a one-issue person. I do, however, care passionately about gay equality and was working hard for it while Joe Solmonese was an Emily's List operative.-AS
This more or less concedes the point that gay-conservatives ought not or cannot play the role of conscience-of-the-movement, even ignoring the personal pettiness. Given that one might compromise enough to elect a President and a party so opposed to gay rights progress, does it make sense or does it make hypocrisy to decry others for doing a near opposite, namely, trying to elect a party that at least is not hostile and may be friendly, in important aspects, like symbolic acceptance and leadership roles.
