Gays Make Right Turn

Front Page Magazine ^ | October 18, 2002 | Joseph J. Sabia

[M 91 u2 K]

During the last year, political pundits have spent a great deal of time discussing American Jews' growing support for President Bush and the Republican Party. In particular, writers at the Weekly Standard and National Review have written at length about how Republicans are wooing traditional Democratic Jews into the conservative fold. Most agree that the shift can be attributed to Jews' support for the Bush Doctrine, especially as it applies to the current Arab-Israeli conflict. But there is another significant political shift that has been largely ignored by most analysts — the rightward shift of American gays.

During the 1992 presidential campaign, there was open acrimony between gay voters and the Republican Party. Some of these hard feelings stemmed from the liberal press' distortion of Patrick Buchanan's famous "culture war" convention speech. In that speech, Buchanan mentioned gay rights two times - first, when he referenced that the Democratic Party would not permit pro-life Governor Robert Casey to address delegates at their convention, but would allow "a militant leader of the homosexual rights movement" to speak, and second, when he announced his opposition to state-sanctioned gay marriage.

While the latter reference ruffled the feathers of some gays, it was hardly a call for jihad by the Republican Party (especially since the Democratic Party had also adopted an anti-gay marriage position). Nonetheless, the press - along with militant leftist gay leaders — was able to scare mainstream gays into believing that a second Krystallnacht was right around the corner if President George H.W. Bush were re-elected.

In 1996, Republican Presidential Candidate Bob Dole returned a $1000 check that his campaign had received from the openly gay Log Cabin Republicans. Apparently, he thought that such an action would solidify his support among some socially conservative Republican voters. The strategy backfired and little came of the entire affair, other than some unnecessary bad press.

By the 2000 campaign, gay rights issues were not discussed by the two major parties because each had virtually identical positions. Both Al Gore and George Bush endorsed the Defense of Marriage Act and Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman voiced opposition to discrimination against gays in the workplace.

Despite the difference in tenor of the 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential campaigns, the proportion of self-identified gays voting for Republicans has steadily increased. Self-identified gays have represented between 4% to 5% of all voters during the last four election cycles, a proportion double that of American Jews. In 1998, 4.2% of voters were self-identified gays (a figure likely to be understated due to the personal nature of one's sexual orientation) while 2.6% of voters were Jews.

In 1992, 23% of gays voted for the Republican candidate for the House of Representatives. That figure increased to 26% in 1994, 28% in 1996, and 33% in 1998. In 2000, over one-fourth of all self-identified gays voted for an unabashed economic and social conservative, George W. Bush. Though no polls have been released since September 11, there is anecdotal evidence suggesting that gays are extremely supportive of the war on terrorism and are identifying more with center-right politicians than the usual neo-socialist busybodies offered by the Democrats.

Why are gays marching rightward in their political affiliations? Four key explanations come to mind:

(1) Greater understanding of the role of free markets in curing AIDS.

Recent technological advancements in medicine have resulted in the development of cocktail drugs that have increased both the life expectancy and quality of life of individuals living with AIDS. These drugs have been especially beneficial to American gays, who have higher rates of HIV infection than other demographic groups. Gays understand that the primary reason why these drugs are now available is the existence of our free market economy.

In a free market, a private pharmaceutical firm has a profit-incentive to develop an AIDS drug if there is consumer demand for that product. This is precisely what we observed in the 1990s. Firms were willing to invest in these life-saving drugs knowing that they would have the opportunity to earn a profit from their sales.

Today, there are radical gay leftists who wish to remove these incentives. Jon Bell, from Act-Up Philadelphia, recently summed up this position:

"All but the wealthiest will continue to have no access to life-saving medicine. The only acceptable plan from industry will guarantee affordability through cuts of 95% or more of the prices we pay."

If Mr. Bell were to get his wish, pharmaceutical companies would have little or no incentive to invent drugs that could improve the lives of people with AIDS. Though he may believe that his heart is in the right place, the policies he advocates would result in more misery and higher death rates.

American gays are turning away from the harmful, radical health policies advocated by Act-Up because they increasingly understand that the free market is the best hope for the creation of life-saving AIDS drugs. To that end, many gays are throwing their support to the Republican Party because the political right does a better job than the left at protecting the market from government intrusion.

(2) Admiration for President Bush's moral clarity in the war on terrorism.

Leftists have long been blaming America for every social and political ill on the face of the earth. Prior to September 11, organizations like the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and the Gay and Lesbian Association Against Defamation (GLAAD) missed no opportunity to whine about the so-called "oppression" of gays in America. They rarely, if ever, spoke of the savage individual rights violations that gays face in the Middle East. Most Arab countries imprison or execute individuals if they are suspected to have engaged in homosexual activity.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban government sanctioned that suspected gays be thrown off of mountaintops or crushed under stone walls. In Egypt, gays are routinely imprisoned, tortured, and killed. After a recent show trial in Saudi Arabia, three gays were beheaded after being charged with "immorality."

What has the HRC and GLADD said about these atrocities? Almost nothing. In fact, many of the leftists affiliated with these organizations have been openly critical of the United States' war on terrorism and the upcoming war in Iraq.

Mainstream gays are beginning to understand that their political leadership is comprised of shrill, socialist anti-Americans who are willing to ally themselves with foreign governments that execute gays in order to enhance their domestic political power. How else can one explain how the HRC and GLAAD can support "zero tolerance" for gay-related hate crimes in America while at the same time finding political solidarity with murderous Islamists and sadistic dictators like Saddam Hussein?

President Bush has provided a clear vision of the necessity to destroy the evildoers in the Middle East before they destroy us. And it is a vision that is increasingly appealing to mainstream gays.

(3) Greater sensitivity to tax policy.

Gay individuals are increasingly becoming the wealthiest taxpayers in the nation. According to the 2000 Census, average household income for gay men is $85,400, more than double the national average (note, however, that this figure does not take into account that gays tend to live in geographic regions with higher costs of living). Moreover, gay households are 3.4 times more likely to have incomes greater than $250,000.

With liberals constantly calling for the rich to be soaked with higher taxes, gay voters are increasingly turning away from the party that wishes to confiscate their wealth. Mainstream gays have a libertarian strand in their philosophy that wishes to keep the state out of their private affairs — that includes their wallets.

A February 2001 nationally representative poll of gays conducted by the Gill Foundation found that 60% of gay Americans rate tax policy as "important to them personally." In addition, a May 2001 Luntz poll found that 72% of gays agreed that the federal death tax is "discriminatory" and 82% support its repeal. Gays are speaking loud and clear on these economic issues — they prefer smaller government. This is good news for the Republican Party.

(4) A change in the selection of individuals who "come out of the closet."

Surely, one of the reasons for the increase in gay support for Republicans is that those individuals who identify themselves as gay today are different than those who did so, say, 10 years ago. In large part due to public efforts by political pundits like Andrew Sullivan and organizations such as the Independent Gay Forum, self-identified politically active gays are no longer cookie-cutter leftists. Today, right-wing gays are more comfortable "coming out of the closet" and voicing their political views because there are many more public figures who share their positions.

The lessons of the last 10 years reflect that the Republican Party will continue to win the votes of American gays not by pandering to them, but rather by sticking to a consistent philosophy that appeals to all voters - one that emphasizes individual liberty and personal accountability.

[no dems]

You are wrong my friend. As a Spirit-filled, evangelical Pastor, I have counseled homosexuals who weep and sob and say "I can remember being like this since I was five years old." There is something to the genetics of it. Granted, many homosexuals choose that lifestyle but there are many who would love to be straight.

[rb22982]

Ok, then answer my question, where does the New Testament, more specifically Jesus, ask for man's law to prosecute those types of crimes.

[ApesForEvolution]

And what if monkeys fly out of Martina Navratilova's back end?

Homosexuality is a product of environment and omission of key ingredients in parenting.

To the extent that man is born in a fallen state since the fall of Adam & Eve, then man is born with a bent towards evil and perversion to begin with.

[FF578]

Libertarians please read this case:

Jesse Sharpless ... John Haines . .. George Haines ... John Steel . . . Ephraim Martin . . . and --- Mayo . . . designing, contriving, and intending the morals, as well of youth as of divers other citizens of this commonwealth, to debauch and corrupt, and to raise and create in their minds inordinate and lustful desires . . . in a certain house there . . . scandalously did exhibit and show for money ... a certain lewd ... obscene painting, representing a man in an obscene ... and indecent posture with a woman, to the manifest corruption and subversion of youth, and other] citizens of this commonwealth . . . offending . . . [the] dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The defendants have been convicted, upon their own confession, of conduct indicative of great moral depravity. . . . This court is ... invested with power to punish not only open violations of decency and morality, but also whatever secretly tends to undermine the principles of society. . .. Whatever tends to the destruction of morality, in general, may be punished criminally. Crimes are public offenses, not because they are perpetrated publicly, but because their effect is to injure the public. Burglary, though done in secret, is a public offense; and secretly destroying fences is indictable. Hence, it follows, that an offense may be punishable, if in its nature and by its example, it tends to the corruption of morals; although it be not committed in public.

The defendants are charged with exhibiting and showing . .. for money, a lewd . . . and obscene painting. A picture tends to excite lust, as strongly as a writing; and the showing of picture is as much a publication as the selling of a book. . . . If the privacy of the room was a protection, all the youth of the city might be corrupted, by taking them, one by one, into a chamber, and there inflaming their passions by the exhibition of lascivious pictures. In the eye of the law, this would be a publication, and a most pernicious one.

Although every immoral act, such as lying, etc., is not indict able, yet where the offense charged is destructive of morality in general ... it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of the government invalid. . . . The corruption of the public mind, in general, and debauching the manners of youth, in particular, by lewd and obscene pictures exhibited to view, must necessarily be attended with the most injurious consequences.. . . No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people; secret poison cannot be thus disseminated.

[FF578]

Pentecostals are not evangelical.

[FF578]

Perhaps you should refer them to exodus ministries.

[Double Tap]

Answer the question, with no spam, in your own words.

DO YOU ADVOCATE KILLING HOMOS, ADULTERERS AND FORNICATORS?

[HassanBenSobar]

Hmmm. Yeah, I read that Kandahar was the San Francisco of the muslim world. But the Talis were about as harsh as you can get...and they're just one example of many, many extremely anti-homo regimes throughout history that in spite of draconian efforts--utterly failed to stamp out homosexuality.

My point here is more that, hey, conservatives may not like homosexuality, and we don't have to, but why oppose those homosexuals who are ideologically (for the most part) on our side? If we insist on perfect allegiance to every conservative ideal, we are no better than the leftists who tolerate no dissenting VIEWS within their ranks, and who sanctimoniously look down upon those 'less ideologically pure' as 'reactionaries', or worse, enemies. Conservatives ought to rise above sectarian squabbles and accept people willing to support a break from the left. Even if we don't like what they do in the privacy of their own homes.

/Rant

[FF578]

Refer to my post #22. I already answered your question.

[FF578]

It worked in 1500's Geneva.

[HassanBenSobar]

Thank you, Mr. Genocide.

[Nick Danger]

Mainstream gays are beginning to understand that their political leadership is comprised of shrill, socialist anti-Americans who are willing to ally themselves with foreign governments that execute gays in order to enhance their domestic political power.

This article is the perfect example of why Dick Morris is wrong when he spews his "Browning of America dooms GOP" nonsense. This exact same thing is going to happen with Hispanics.

Democrats think they have this formula for dealing with "minorities." That formula depends on the minorities staying poor, feeling oppressed, and falling for some pretty outrageous rhetoric from self-appointed "community leaders" who always turn out to be leftists first and community advocates second... when they aren't just money-grubbing hustlers.

But if the "oppressed minorities" start making middle-class dough and learn how to read, they wander off the plantation grounds, wondering why the Hell they ever listened to those so-called 'community leaders' in the first place.

[rb22982]

Good luck ever being elected or having your ideals put into play.

[Double Tap]

Absolutely terrifying. You have represented yourself as a LEO on this forum, and yet you have demonstrated that you are mentally unstable, maybe even insane.

We have good men and women fighting in a far off land to rid a country of people like you. Thank goodness there are few of you.

I pity you.

[BlazingArizona]

Perhaps the GOP can set up a puptent just for you behind the Big Tent.

[rb22982]

LOL

[dogbyte12]

I am curious, bigot boy... since homosexuality didn't make the Letterman top 10 on God's list... why your hostility, other than your repressed nature?

God was more concerned about stealing, adultery, taking his name in vain, honoring mom and pop, than your pet issue. Shouldn't ya focus on God's 10 top peeves first before you express your self loathing, and fear of being attracted to people of your same sex?

[ItsJeff]

But if the "oppressed minorities" start making middle-class dough and learn how to read... wondering why the Hell they ever listened to those so-called 'community leaders' in the first place.

And then along comes FF578 and his ilk, sending 'em all back to the Dems with arms stretched and checkbooks open.

[Calico Cat]

I agree--tax policy is the reason for this. Gay MEN tend to be better-educated than average and make more money. If they pair up, they have double incomes and most of them have no kids. Gay men are just like me and thee--they like to keep the money they earn.

Gay women are a different story; many of them are attracted to lower-wage jobs (social work, non-profits) and tend to be more reliably lefty in their sympathies.

[Calico Cat]

I'm never going to understand why a few people on this board tend to 'lose it' when the subject is homosexuality. My attitude: as long as you're not harming somebody else or involving underage people, your business is your own.