Facing the gay gestapo

The Advocate ^ | 4/16/02 | Tammy Bruce

[mondonico]

Facing the gay gestapo

By Tammy Bruce

From The Advocate (via FrontPageMag.com), April 16, 2002

I thought I knew what it was like to be on the outside. Most of us gay and lesbian people think we do. After all, we live our lives, out or not, knowing we are on the fringes of society. As a very out feminist gay woman, former leader in the National Organization for Women, I thought I knew what it was like to be at odds with the Establishment. Boy, was I wrong!

You see, it wasn’t until I came out as a dissenter against certain policies of the left-wing political establishment that I learned what it is like to be on the “wrong side” of an issue. These days to be a dissenter from inside the Left means to be isolated, questioned, and distrusted by our own. We know the terms: “self-loathing,” “right-wing shill,” with the cruelest cut meant to be “conservative.”

In my book, The New Thought Police, I challenge the hypocrisy in the feminist and gay establishment on issues of freedom of expression and liberty. When it was released I came face-to-face with the “accusation” of being—gasp!—a conservative. As soon as the book hit the shelves a friend and current leader in NOW, Carol (a pseudonym), called me at home. “What happened to you?” she cried, truly hurt by what she thought was my embrace of conservatism. “I knew talk radio would ruin you!” she proclaimed, referring to my being a radio talk-show host and revealing the fear the Left has of unbridled discussion of the issues. She hadn’t read my book, but even the fact that I had the gall to publicly announce the emperor was stark naked was, for her, indeed a betrayal.

Carol’s reaction was not unique, and that was especially troubling. I spent almost a decade in the trenches working on civil rights issues for women and gays. I’m the same pro-choice feminist I always was. So why were some who knew me so ready to presume I had been abducted by aliens and transformed into the dreaded conservative?

To label someone conservative in our community is meant to cross a line through that person’s name—to associate us with religious fanatics and fundamentalists. Ironically, in all my work I have found that the genuine conservative, who champions the traditional American value of individual liberty, is upholding the values that make it possible for everyone, especially gays and lesbians, to live our lives as we choose.

I am a lesbian, I am pro-choice, and I am a gun owner. Carol is pro-choice, straight (well, none of us is perfect!), and an ardent gun-control advocate. The heart of our conversation revolved around the fact that individual liberty doesn’t necessarily mean being different from everyone else nor marching in lockstep—it means being free to make the choices that best suit us. We knew we would always disagree on certain issues, but this time it was different for her.

"You voted for Reagan!” is how Carol articulated that last straw, that thing that exposed my supposed dangerous conservative underbelly. I told Carol that the same principles that compel me to be pro-choice also oblige me to vote my conscience. Yes, I voted for Reagan in 1984. I also voted for Michael Dukakis in 1988 and (now to my dismay) Bill Clinton. Twice. In 2000, I voted for George W. Bush (with pride). What does all that make me? I hope a thoughtful person.

Funny, isn’t it? The values that allow us to be us—belief in personal liberty and freedom of expression (think Dr. Laura)—are now labeled as conservative ideals by the left-wing establishment. I support Dr. Laura because she has the right to say whatever she pleases, without having to face a gay gestapo for using an unauthorized word to describe us.

I told Carol that if she wants to call me a conservative, fine. But I asked that she should be aware of what principles she and the establishment are throwing into that bucket. In truth, if those who defend liberty are to be defined as conservative in today’s political climate, then I’m proud to wear that label—as proud as I am of “feminist,” “gay,” and “pro-choice.”

[bribriagain]

"You don't know any gay people, do you?"

Why, are you looking?

[Pistias]

the gay gestapo

Whatever you do, do NOT try to find a funny picture to mock that title.

[nickcarraway]

Well, which do you support, that both Christian and gay groups can do this or that they can't do it? Or that only one or the other can do it?

[nickcarraway]

Have you ever heard of the movie, ``American Beauty?''

[KS Flyover]

the gay gestapo

"Whatever you do, do NOT try to find a funny picture to mock that title."

[nickcarraway]

Did you see it the movie ``American Beauty?'' It won the Academy Award two years ago. They portray every character in the movie as deeply disturbed and basically mentally. Marriage is portrayed as inevitably damaging and unhealthy. The only happy well-adjusted people in the entire movie was the gay couple. The message was quite clear.

[nickcarraway]

I think Miss Bruce was equally against both, so her position remains consistent.

I seem to recall that a lot of her complaint had to do with news shows, which aren't controlled by advertisers as much. For example, fellow members of NOW didn't want her on TV criticizing O.J. Simpson because they deemed that unacceptable.

[Tuor]

She is thinking libertarians (fence sitters), who want a feel good society of anarchy and socialism.

And you should take a course in libertarianism. Libertarians want small government, not *no* government and certainly not socialism.

As a semi-libertarian, I want the smallest possible government needed to do the things proscribed by the Constitution. No larger...and no smaller. I believe, that the State should stay out of those individual freedoms which do not interfere with the freedoms of others, *whether or not I agree with them*.

I don't see how that is 'fence sitting.'

Tuor

[Tuor]

It doesn't matter whether I support either doing it--they'll do it regardless.

Nice non-answer. For myself, I support them doing this... as long as the government stays out of it.

More generally, I think that homosexuality is wrong; morally wrong, but it shouldn't be illegal. God may take exception to the act, but that's between the individual and God, so long as no one else is hurt by it.

I think homosexuality is a choice, but one that some people are more prone towards than others, just as some people are more prone towards excessive drinking and others towards greed: we are all flawed and it is part of our duty to strive to overcome these flaws...with God's help.

Obviously, I don't expect you to agree with my views. It's not really important that you do. My views allow you to follow what you want so long as others are not hurt. I uphold your right to use and abuse your free will. I think you'll have to answer to God for it, but if you don't believe in Him (or think he doesn't have a problem with it), then that's your choice. The key, for us, is to keep the government out of things they have no business being in, and IMO, this is one of those things.

Tuor

[wwjdn]

I see it as fence sitting becuase they will almost always say that anything between two consenting adults is fine. This is a very dangerous ideal that I believe is destroying our nation and turning millions away from God. We need morals and rules, we don't need big Govt. to do this, which is the one part of their ideals I agree with.

[wwjdn]

Well seeing how we've been in normal society since time immemorial, where would you like to put us? We're not going anywhere, you know.

The main issue is that the homosexuals existed quietly, which is how it should be! Just like any other sexual activity, should be kept in private. Today we should all kinds of sexual perversions from our TV's, billboards, radios, CD's, mouths in public, etc. Then we expect our children to grow up and have a normal, healthy life.

We have also taken all responsibility away from everyone. All crimes are blamed on someone else and the punishment is therefore diminished and ineffective. We have GOT to start accepting and placing responsibility where it belongs and rebuild our society.

[TLBSHOW]

No! It goes on and on

[Tuor]

I see it as fence sitting becuase they will almost always say that anything between two consenting adults is fine.

I seperate the State from the Community and the Individual. Laws, IMO, can never create a moral society on a large scale. Instead, it is up to individuals -- people such as you and me -- to establish and uphold community standards which are moral and upstanding.

Thus, I would disagree with a law prohibiting homosexuality, but would be in complete agreement with a community that shunned all known homosexuals. On the one hand, the State is given the power to enforce morals; on the other, the people do it through their right to associate or disassociate.

I am both a libertarian *and* a Christian. I believe that God has certain expectations and requirements towards us, and that those who ignore or spit on those things are in Deep Trouble. However, I also believe in God-given free will, so people do have the right to ignore God, so long as they hurt no one besides themselves when doing so. As a Christian, I find homosexuality reprehensible, but also as a Christian I acknowledge that people who practice homosexuality have the right to exercise their free will in doing so.

The State is an inhuman institution, especially when it grows very large. It becomes a monster that reflects all the worst tendencies of men with very little of the restraints that individuals are forced to live under. The State must *never* be allowed to roam unfettered or unwatched, but must always be chained down as securely as possible.

Our Founding Fathers realized this and did what they could to straitjacket government without making it completely useless (as government *is* a necessary evil -- I am not an anarchist). But, over time, the worst elements of mankind (the kind that are attracted to the power found in government) have managed to corrode most of the safeguards the Founding Fathers put in place. This is easily observable and why I think that the US is, as a Constitutional Republic, doomed -- there will still be a US perhaps, but it wont be the sort of country envisioned by Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Fanklin, and the others.

As a libertarian and a Christian, I think the US Constitution was the best document for running a country that could be conceived. I regret deeply that the US is no longer committed to upholding the principles it enshrines.

Tuor