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.
Post 39 is a repost of my post 17 for emphasis.
You still are avoiding answering the question.
DID YOU READ IT?
You posted, “So I welcome any homosexuals who happen to otherwise have conservative values to my side of the fight.”
How can you post communists have conservative values TO post 39? Or 17?
Well the gays can join if they want. I’m just not turning my back on them.
I had 2 of Coulter’s books on preorder.
Godless: The Church of Liberalism
If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans
I just cancelled them.
Romney have been endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans twice.
I’m all for “big tens” and all that, however, even tents have walls. Having gone camping many, many times, I can tell you with some authority that there is an inside to a tent, and an outside. These two sides are quite distinct and do not overlap. Furthermore, there are things outside the tent that do not belong inside the tent. Bears spring to mind. Campfires are another item. Similarly, in a “big tent” party, there are things that do not belong inside the tent. Bears, obviously, are on the list here as well. Campfires, perhaps could be admitted into this tent. Large, flaming homosexuals, however, are an outside-the-tent item. If you are a Big, Gay Al kinda guy, but you really are far more concerned about high taxes than whether you and Bruce get to pretend you’re married, then come on into the tent. We’ll pretend that your just a campfire. If, however, you expect us to bring you and Bruce a wedding present just because you checked the little “R” on the voter registration form, you can go outside and sit with the grizzlies.
Well, that being the case....
Yes, I find that your information from post 17 is quite educational.... I missed it the first time through; Sorry for attributing it to someone who merely cut and pasted your info..
But I still would prefer a homosexual who is otherwise conservative to ANY liberal of heterosexual persuasion; the ‘Log Cabin Republicans’ founder’s political persuasions notwithstanding.
If someone backs me up in a street fight, I don’t really care what they did in their bedroom the night before or the night after.
God is welcome to sort them out later if he so chooses; as long as they didn’t vote for Gore or Kerry in the past, Or Hillary, Edwards or Obama in the future, I’ll consider them allies for now.
I’ll repeat again, the homosexuality is the red herring.
The Log Cabin Republicans are affiliated with communists, ANSWER and the antiwar movement.
We are not talking about two guys that want to listen to Barry Manilow on the weekend. We are talking about the communist party.
The more everyone allows them to use homosexuality as the area denial from looking further, the more we will not see Stonewall and ANSWER.
...umm... Nevermind.
The pursuit of happiness is not the pursuit of hedonism.
And the Nazi elite were fudgepackers.
FIRST OF ALL: I'm not now, nor ever in this thread been talking about the "Log Cabin Republicans"..... Your information in post #17 was interesting, but not really significant to my basic opinion on the substance of the ORIGINAL topic.
I specifically said, more than once, essentially that 'homosexuals that are otherwise conservative' are welcome in the GOP as far as I'm concerned. If you hate them, and believe that ALL homosexuals are communists; If you would rather they vote Democrat; that is between you, them, Karl Marx, God and the RNC.
SECOND: I repeat; My initial post that 'set you off' was never intended to speak to you AT ALL. I was only stating my opinion. The 'reply to thing' was only a matter of convenience from the (at the time) last post in the thread. As I have said previously: I blanked out the 'reply to' box, indicating that I was not answering anyone directly. If you chose to make this a personal feud, it is misdirected, and a complete waste of your time and mine.
Pitching a Big Tent?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067958/
W.R. - Misterije organizma (1971)
W.R.: Mysteries of the Organism
A dense film that cuts up footage of a primary plot of two young Yugoslavian girls, one a politico and the other a sexpot, and an affair with a visiting Russian skater. Mixing metaphors of Russia’s relationship with Yugoslavia, intercut with footage and interviews with Wilhelm Reich and Al Goldstein of Screw magazine. The film applies Reich’s theories of Orgone energy and analogies of Stalinism as a form of Freudian sexual repression. Also known as W.R. The Mysteries of the Organism in English subtitled version. Was banned in Yugoslavia shortly after it was made. Written by Malcolm Humes {mal@emf.net}
Half-documentary about Wilhelm Reich, scientist who tried to bring together teachings of Freud and Marx and was persecuted by Hitler, Stalin and McCarthy. The movie deals with the scientist and with the people who try to put his teachings into practice. Written by Dragan Antulov {dragan.antulov@altbbs.fido.hr}
This film treads a remarkably thin (perhaps non-existent) line between self-consciously satirical art and anarchic pornography. A sort of sexually liberated Eisensteinian journey, Makavejev proves that truth is always stranger (or at least more disturbing) than fiction. Waxing brilliant at times, and at others resigning to a sort of “Pull My Daisy” super-realism in the beat tradition, there are few films from this period that effect a more riveting commentary on Communism (whether or not any conclusions are actually reached).
Makavejev was always one of the clowns of the Third Cinema, and WR, his masterpiece, is no exception. Makavejev interweaves fiction, documentary, and found audio and video clips (a Stalinist propaganda film, electro-shock treatment footage) to create a fantastically bizarre but intelligent discussion of both the orgone energy theory of Wilhelm Reich and the relationship between Yugoslavia and the USSR in a post-Stalinist era.
I know. It sounds tedious, but it isn’t. In fact, it’s really fascinating. Among the clips Makavejev (a film theoretician in his own right, WR harkens back to the pre-Stalinist era of Soviet Montage) assembles are footage of performance art by the Yippie poet/singer Tuli Kapferberg and documentary clips of Jim Buckley, an editor for Screw Magazine, getting a mold of his penis made.
WR is bizarre, dogmatic, and at times, hard to watch, but having seen it twice now, I’ve come to appreciate its ways. By the time Vladimir breaks into song at the film’s end, you’ll be smiling too.
I have been trying to see this for many years, particularly after I discovered Reich in my reading in the early 80’s, read some of his writings as well as a great biography “Fury on Earth”. Now our library has it on a new video release, and I have to say it was worth the wait. It is a masterpiece of documentary insight into its subject Wilhelm Reich, of subversive cinema in that it has a great power to undermine the beliefs of the viewers/participators, and of classical comedy and drama as embodied (good choice of words) in the “fictional movie” within the documentary. Occasionally punctuated by the wild and crazy NY poet/musician Tuli Kupferberg roaming the streets of Manhattan in full battle array and carrying an M-16 (I don’t think they could get away with that these days, unless they had a Mr. De Niro in the cast.) Yes, it is blatant hippie/yippie revolutionary zeitgeist of 1968-1971, which was very much fueled by the father of the sexual revolution, Dr. Reich, who had died in 1957 in jail for not answering a subpoena to defend his claims of cancer cures. He said he would be judged by scientists but not by lawyers. Inasmuch as he was the only individual to have his books burned by both Hitler and the US government (FDA), his story and his philosophy should be more widely known, but of course he is still suppressed by some of the powers that be. The erotic content of “WR” is tame in the face of today’s hardcore but all the more effective for it, in that Reich condemned pornography but glorified healthy sexuality above all else. And for those “doves” that still populate the earth by the millions or billions, the words and deeds of the good Dr. Reich, who was exiled by Hitler and then Stalin (who is shown in this documentary in some amazing pseudo-heroic films he had made of himself,) still resonate. As do the words of Tuli Kupferberg and his band The Fugs, on the soundtrack: “Kill, kill, kill for peace...Near or far or very middle East...”
A prismatic view of hell-tinted sex, a subject explored exhaustively the same year by Ed Wood in NECROMANIA, Russ Meyer in BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, and Michael Sarne in MYRA BRECKENRIDGE. Sex here is a schizophrenic action, emotionally and politically liberating, yet still somehow sinful and inflammatory. The subplot about Wilhelm Reich is more proof that society will brutally slaughter anyone even remotely resembling a potential savior. The bizarre collage and documentary parts are great, but the tangential Marxist subplot stinks, trying vainly to coalesce cultural suicide with political slapstick. Still intriguing is the notion that liberation is tied to the release of feelings and personal experiments such as breathing through crying and anger. But WR:MOTO poses more questions than it answers. Are free love and anarchy antithetical? Is communism really “milk and cookies?” Is sexual repression evil? Does beheading a female revolutionary qualify as gratuitous violence? The severed head pontificates: “Life without f**king isn’t worth a thing.”
The gist of the sex positive agenda? No moral judgements over any sexual pairings regardless of sex, age, relation, marital status, number, or species of partner(s).
If it feels good do it.
Everyone sexually active at every age.
And how this has ANY ties to conservatism I’ll never know. Pure pinko philosophy.
What makes you believe that a Communist would vote Democrat?
You mean, like, the liberals nominate about 10 presidential candidates but only really want one certain one elected? All the while the Dems get face time debates on all channels and only one sounds rational?
So the 9 token candidates can really act leftist while the real, preferred socialist candidate acts like a centrist? When she runs for president she will run as a "centrist" and claim to be a "new democrat" like Toni Blair ran as "new labour" in UK?
yitbos
Jesus H Christu.
Communists are a heck of a lot more likely to vote Democrat than Republican.... Especially since they aren’t (yet, anyway) running their own candidates for national office.
Where do you people get these ideas. Quit putting YOUR words into my FR posts. I never said ANYTHING like that. Sober up, get off the crack pipe or whatever it takes.
I’m going to log off before you and Calpernia make my head explode from your non sequiturs.
I shan’t reply to any more idiocies in this thread if I can avoid it.
We do not recognize interest groups based upon sexual behavior. That is a subject best left in the bedroom and has no place in the public forum. They are not a minority deserving of special rights. I will not address them as to foster this delusion.
The Republicans, spineless as they are, realize the danger of recognizing "special rights" based upon personal sexual behavior and the risk it presents towards the persecution of everyone else who does not participate in the said sexual behavior.
They are "gay" because they have gay sex. Sex is an act and the method of sex is a specific behavior.
They are not a "race". They are not an "ethnic group". They are not born with an identifiable birth defect or distinct chromosome.
They are gay because they behave that way. Very different from a man who is black, white or asian because they were born black, white or asian.
You cannot recognize special rights for personal sexual behavior. It opens the door for others to claim special rights for any given behavior on the basis of "sinister birth" or other false claims.
Can someone be born with a sexual attraction for animals? Can someone be born a pedophile or arsonist? These are all behaviors that emerge later in life. Would recognizing special rights for gay give those folks grounds for claiming similar rights in their future? Don't be so sure it wouldn't.
It doesn't help that advancing "homosexual rights" is one of the stated planks of implementing communist goals via destruction of American society. This is entered in the congressional record Here you go...
They must want him to lose. Why else would they give him their kiss of death?
yitbos
You posted: What could be a more patriotic name than Log Cabin Republicans.
***
I used to think that, too, until I learned on this site what “log cabin” means... It is not pretty, and it is NOT a house like Lincoln may have lived in. Think of where human (male) fecal matter is stored, which happens to be the “target” of male homosexual sex and you may re-think your position on the name Log Cabin Republicans.
I’m sorry’ My immediate reply to yours was less than perfectly coherent.
Don’t get me wrong: I still have an issue with what you said... But I’ll admit that I’m still a little upset from earlier discussions and getting kind of ‘punchy’ so I’m going to call truce for now.
Have a good night/morning.
The Log Cabin Republicans are affiliated with communists, ANSWER and the antiwar movement."
Reminds me of the Greek communist Ariana Huffington who, with her homosexual husband, penetrated the upper levels of GOP.
yitbos
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.