Posted on 08/20/2007 10:30:08 PM PDT by Coleus
SOMETIMES tragic occurrences force us to stop and think – those are the moments that crystallize our perceptions of human relations. I found myself in such a state with the passing of a constituent, friend and fellow conservative who also happened to be gay. Our conversations convinced me that my beliefs in limited government can be shared across the chasms that liberals and conservatives perceive to separate us – ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. That conclusion is not popular on either side of the left-right spectrum: Liberals don't believe gays should be conservative and conservatives don't believe gays can be conservative, especially when a radical left gay contingent dominates media attention and right-wing conformists place their own moral judgment before individual freedom.
The Republican Party claims to be a "Big Tent," and rightfully so, as the core conservative principles of the party revolve around individual liberty and a limited government that serves to protect that liberty. These ideas can help our party cut across lines of "group identity," because the idea of freedom is appealing to groups that lack the political clout necessary to keep government out of their pocketbooks and lives. Historically, gay Americans have struggled for the freedom to live their lives the way they choose in order to pursue happiness. This is the American Dream, the cornerstone of conservative thinking, and it is these principles that make the increasingly influential gay community the conservative movement's natural ally.
It may surprise some to learn that the very same conservative who refused to be coerced into performing civil union ceremonies by government believes gay voters should be conservative, yet this very instance points to our common ground – a commitment to the rights of the individual and opposition to the power of a collectivist state. The media like to portray conservatives as wild-eyed ideologues, which is unfair. Of the philosophies that have directed civilization, conservatism has resulted in the most liberty for people around the world. It is at the hands of the liberal welfare state that individualism is destroyed; thus the failure of communism, fascism and socialism in promoting a signature American entitlement – "the pursuit of happiness."
Americans take that phrase for granted, but the idea was culture-transforming. Happiness derives its meaning from the Middle English hap, meaning "chance" or "luck." It is the same root present in the words perhaps or happenstance. The idea present in the words "pursuit of happiness" is the notion that individuals can make their own happiness. Happiness is not purely a matter of luck, but a goal to be pursued in a free environment characterized by limited government. Our Founding Fathers held this truth to be so "self-evident" that they declared it was the indisputable right of all individuals to pursue happiness. With this belief, many members of the gay community have played a critical role in the conservative movement. Conservatives from Terry Dolan to Andrew Sullivan prove there has been no shortage of influential gay leadership. Arguably, their involvement is even greater in the conservative wing of the party than in the moderate middle.
Upper income brackets
Many gay adults are also in upper income brackets, making the issue of low taxes, which conservatives have staked their reputation on, an important one. The principles of limited government that keep Big Brother out of our personal lives must also keep him out of our pocketbooks. Liberal Democrats may not care what individuals do in their bedrooms, but they are already rattling their tax-hiking sabers to let us know they do care what individuals do with their money. Obstacles to achieving our real goal of reducing the size of government and limiting its ability to interfere in our lives must be torn down. Gays shouldn't expect government to foist acceptance of their lifestyle on others; religious conservatives shouldn't expect gays to abandon an integral part of their being.
Barry Goldwater once remarked that government cannot pass laws to "make people like each other." His words still ring true today. Labeling people "homophobes" or "bigots" if they refuse to accept the entire gay agenda creates political fractures that work against individual liberties and serve to keep gay voters in the Democratic Party's political ghetto. The Republican Party must reestablish its commitment to the rights of the individual while respecting the moral code of one subset and upholding the freedom of another. Quite a challenge, indeed. However, the Big Tent needn't become a kaleidoscope of political policies designed to appeal to a large crowd at the expense of sacrificing principles.
Rather, it must transcend mere politics by becoming a manifestation of the principles that culminated in our Declaration of Independence and attract those who share this vision. The principles that are the underpinning of conservatism will ultimately make room in the tent for a surprisingly wide range of membership.
Reestablishing a commitment
In memory of the fine gentleman who inspired this article, I will reestablish my commitment to understanding and the core principles of conservative thought that I believe will best serve our future. My friend fought a tragic inner battle that tormented him to suicide. No one will ever understand the emotional turmoil that destroyed his life. The demons that haunted him and drove him to such a dark and lonely end also know no ethnic, gender or sexual-orientation boundaries. The boundaries of infinity are large enough and eternity long enough for all of us.
So let the values that we share, as mutual as those terrible instances of suffering that each of us can encounter, allow us all to strive for happiness during our brief stay on Earth. Thanks, buddy, see you in a better place. Steve Lonegan, a Republican, is mayor of Bogota.
ping to 120
Thanks for the link!
Actually, I don’t think there should be any laws prohibiting discrimination in the sale or rental of private housing. If you’re a libertarian, how can you argue otherwise? You’re basically saying that the state’s commitment to egalitarianism overrides property rights, freedom of association, and religious liberty.
Even if one accepts that there are some anti-discrimination laws that are legitimate, how does homosexuality, which is a sexual perversion, meet the criteria for inclusion?
BTW, I’m not a libertarian, yet I seem to support less government than you do.
If your argument is that landlords have the right to reject tenants for moral reasons, then that argument is lost already. You can't discriminate against someone based on their religion, marital status and the like. It's true that discrimination against blacks was a unique and pervasive wrong that need to be corrected by unprecedented means. But that doesn't mean it's okay to discriminate against a Buddhist.
Because they make fabulous cocktails and know how to decorate?
Oh, wrong kind of "party." Sorry.
The very idea that a private business is a public accommodation is problematic, in my opinion. It certainly isn’t libertarian to support such a concept.
Unless that freedom to associate involves religion or the lack thereof, sex, marital status, race, or sexual orientation, in which case you don't. Can you name any person that does not have a religion or lack of one, a sex, a marital status, a race, or a sexual orientation? With whom do we have the right NOT to associate with then, if all are protected?
Because it is has nothing to do with whether a person is a good tenant or not. Do you think we should repeal the housing laws that say you have to rent to a Hindu?
In your personal life. I'm speaking only of businesses that are public accommodation. You can choose not to associate with blacks, women, or Hindus but you don't have a right to refuse service to them unless you are a private club.
We are all equal under the law. Renting to a gay person does not make that person more equal.
You are correct, but in addition, it is discriminatory for the state to pick which sexual deviancies it wishes to promote and “protect”, and which it does not.
Compare polygamy and homosexuality, for example. There is more agitation for sanctioning same-sex “marriage” than for sanctioning polygamous marriage. Why? Well, for no other reason than that the homosexual lobby is powerful, well financed, and fashionable.
If human-animal sex became “chic” tomorrow, we’d start seeing people demanding anti-discrimination laws against people who are sexually attracted to sheep.
But as of now, out of all the various perversions and sexual variations that exist, ONLY homosexuality gets promoted in this way. There will be no leather fetish night at a Padres game. Only a gay night.
I disagree. I would hate to think I wasn't able to buy my house because of the color of my skin or whether I'm divorced.
I wish the government didn't have to intrude on this sort of thing but I wish more that it didn't have to.
I don't see how this is "promoting" behavior. Lots of married people engage in deviant sexual behavior. The fact that these folks aren't denied housing doesn't mean the government is promoting oral sex. Does government promote Hinduism by banning discrimination against Hindus?
Equal protection under the law, no more but no less.
Yes, people should be free to rent or refuse to rent to whomever they choose, for whatever reason they choose. If a Christian doesn’t want to rent to a Hindu, that’s his business. Ditto if a Hindu doesn’t want to rent to a Christian.
However, I will add that there’s nothing inherently unnatural about being a Hindu. So it’s not comparable to homosexuality, which is counter to nature.
So you can associate with whoever you want only in your personal life. Now, since we live in homes and work in offices if you must rent or sell to anyone regardless of who they are, and you must employ anyone regardless of who they are, where are you truly able to exercise freedom of association?
It all wraps together. There is more threat to freedom of association than you are recognizing and less freedom than you think. Basically, whenever it matters, politically, economically, or personally, other than in your own home, you can’t choose who to associate with.
Basically any activity that doesn't involve public accommodation. Churches, scouting, country clubs, social clubs, etc. can and should be able to discriminate based on any reason or no reason. Hotels, restaurants, libraries, public pools, etc. shouldn't.
I included Hindus because religiously, they're violating the First Commandment.
Scouting has been under serious attack for over a decade for not allowing gay scoutmasters.
I'm not in the capital "L" sense. I've got to get off now but in any case, this argument is moot -- what I'm arguing is essentially the settled law, unless we repeal laws relating to public accommodations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.