This guy was rumored to be, well......"
Posted on 04/15/2002 7:35:35 AM PDT by 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.”
No, it would have been as impossible to miss that as if someone was standing on a soapbox screaming it at the top of their lungs. The heterosexual marriage left the Chris Cooper character's wife virtually catatonic and his son messed up. It is the intrinsic nature of marriage, to the filmmaker. Kevin Spacey and Annette Bening's marriage was only marginally better. Bening's character (a one dimensional stereotype that was a soporific cliche 15 years ago)was uptight and neurotic, because that's what a married woman is.
So the young heterosexual couple (the son of the Kevin Spacey character and his girlfriend) were "deeply disturbed and basically mentally"? I didn't think so.
Check again, they were pretty messed up, but less so, because maybe they could reject their parent's lifestyle.
I guess I got a different message than you did. The message that I got was the obvious contrast the (apparent) happiness of the gay couple with the obvious distress and ultimate destructiveness that internalized homophobia can cause.
No, I got that same message you did. Check my earlier post, your statement is basically a paraphrase of what I said. It was a very preachy movie. But the gay=good, straight=sick message was clear.
It's funny that you don't, since that was the main part of the movie. The homophobia angle was definitely part of the movie, but did you think that was the only angle?
This guy was rumored to be, well......"
They complained about seeing two gay men in bed and kissing. That doesn't have the same bland nice-ness as "positive gay character" does it?
The Boy Scouts of America have nothing to fear from gay scout leaders. < sarcasm >
Don't be led astray, Islamic terrorists are not doing God's will!!! I can only hope that these terrorists are called to meet their god soon. When judgement day comes, they are in for a major shock!
You certainly wouldn't want to turn your back on them.
Author:
If you're any of those things, don't fret about being called a "conservative." At least not by conservatives. It won't happen. What you are is a whiny brat who can't commit to ANY ideology, and who convinces herself that she's "open-minded" by vacillating between the two camps. Kinda like David Crock ... er, ... Brock. You aren't opposed to any of the Left's beliefs on PRINCIPLE; your resistance just cost you an invitation to the good parties. Therefore, you simply swell the ranks of moral cowards.
Good point. Some would say fornication outside of marriage is wrong; morally wrong, but I, like, you, believe that the government has no business policing what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms.
I don't think many people think otherwise. The problem is that in our increasingly socialist, entitlement-based society, people practicing acts morally repugnant to others feel that they are entitled to much more than tolerance (i,e, the right to be left alone). Dissenting protestant sects left England because they wanted tolerance--the right to worship as they pleased. Today's activists want much more--they want to become the Established Church. It's not enough to be left alone--deviants today want the official seal of approval from society, and all the socialist wealth-transfers that entails.
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.