I believe strongly that there should be no distinction in the law between gay people and any other citizen. Certainly gay unions should be respected and recognized by the law.

But in this election, I am a single issue voter, and that issue is the war on terror.

Anyone who thinks that any other issue is more important to the future, hell to the SURVIVAL of this country, is deluding themselves.

One reason against it is that not everyone votes based on their agreement on moral issues. One quarter of those who believe ALL abortions should be ILLEGAL voted for Gore in 2000. Not everyone who opposes gay marriages are going to vote for the candidate aggainst it. Again, if the fight over this issue from the GOP side turns into the so-called pro-family, culture war agenda of the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, it will turn people off. This is not because they support gays being legally married, but because they do not like the agenda that it is part of. It will turn into this type of fight because people such as Anthony Perkins (Appropriate name!) of FCR and Sandy Rios insist on this. If it is merely about protecting states from recognizing the such unions of other states against their wishes, you probably won't lose too much, depending on the wording of the bill, but the two I mentioned insist that Bush condemn civil unions and prevent states from recognizing them, even though no other state must recognize them. George Will recently talked of "strong government in the support of conservative values". That is a turn off. There is a difference between defending the rights of conscience of conservatives and forcing states and their peoples to toe conservative values. Of course, this is the difference between a conservative who believes in individual resposibility and liberties and someone who is merely Hillary Clinton with traditional morals. Forget the polls. It depends on who dominates the Republican side of the debate. The side that looks more intolerant is going to lose this fight. I only think that the Dems can sideline their nuts better than the GOP can theirs. Of course, some 'GOP' nuts aren't even Republicans, and not very loyal when they don't get exactly what they demand. If they are not given what they demand, maybe the GOP will stop relying on their votes and actually depend on people who would actually be more loyal if they were treated as though they were Republicans, not so-called RINOs. When the GOP was more diverse in the 1980's, Reagan got more votes from Democratic areas, there were actually Republican Congressmen in Democratic bastions of the North, and the GOP had the Senate for several years. Sorry, John Chafee's fiscal responsibility and social libertarianism was far more Republican than the Christian values version of Hillary that we get from so many of these Republican 'converts' from Democratism.

Nice post, Dean.
I agree 100%.

I've always tried to remember that homosexuals are people first and homosexual somewhere farther down the line. I fully support those who encourage homosexuals to fully engage in society and express themselves through all the facets of their personality, rather than merely through the one aspect of orientation. Getting involved in politics on mulitiple issues is a great way to start that, because if you will never cast a vote for a Republican under any circumstances, you give the Republicans excellent motivation for never listening to your needs.

As a social conservative, Republican, currently-serving military member, I find "don't ask, don't tell" abhorrent, and only incrementally better than the active persecution of homosexuals that came before that. Thus, I fully advocate allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military.

I've always hated that people like Clarence Thomas and Andrew Sullivan have been smeared as Uncle Toms, traitors, etc. I don't care for their politics (I can't stand Thomas'; Sullivan is more persuasive) but to use these labels is idiotic. They OWE blacks/gays anything. Blacks and gays are no more homogenuous a group than whites and straights.

As a matter of fact, I think the expectation that "real" blacks and gays must vote Democratic actually hurts them because it allows the Democrats to take them for granted.

But why should a pro-war, anti-abortion, gun-lover vote Democratic just because s/he is gay?

Obviously, I meant to write about: Thomas and Sullivan DON'T owe blacks/gays anything.

"If he wants to get re-elected, if he's among that majority of Americans who still oppose gay marriage, why shouldn't Bush come out swinging in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment...

Because the Amendment is a loser (support for the amendment is much lower than the Gallup poll implies), and he doesn't want to be associated with it. Because most of the people that favor the amendment will already vote for him. Because it could be seen as mean-spirited and alienate critical swing votes. But most importantly, I think a fight over it would distract from his No.1 issue.

"If Democrats put up a weak candidate on national defense, the best you'll be able to expect from someone like me is to vote Bush at the top of the ticket and maybe a few Democrats further down the list."

I think it might be useful if you spent an entry explaining what you define as "strong on national defense." A positive explanation ('we should do this and this'), not a negative one (we should avoid the approach taken by x).

Brian - that would be nice... even nicer would be for the Democratic Candidates to explain what their definitions are of 'make us safer' (or however you want to phrase it)... but that, I've decided, is extremely unlikely.

I think most Democratic candidates' opinions on "what would make us safer" include giving France a veto over our defense policies.

Ironically, the only two things that I cannot compromise on regarding my vote are national defense (I won't vote for any candidate who acts like we live in a pre-9/11 world) and a constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage (any candidate who favors it will not get my vote).

I am aware this may leave me voting third party in November.

Mike,
Why not? After all, an amendment to the Constitution doesn't just happen because a politician introduces it. A Constitutional Amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, and that would not happen in the current climate. Even attempting to bring it about would cost its supporters an immense amount of political capital, and its failure would ensure that another such amendment couldn't be proposed for the next century or so, and might even result in a backlash against the anti-homosexualists.

So why not give your support to someone who could bring that about? After all, if it serves your eventual goal...?

The other way to look at it is this: do you believe in Democracy or not?
Meaning: if a supermajority of US citizens support a Constitutional amendment on anything, should a loyal, patriotic US citizen who opposes the Constitution fight fairly to oppose but accept the will of the majority? Or should that loyal, patriotic citizen do anything, legal or not, ethical or not, to prevent the passage of what the supermajority wants?
On the one hand, what if the Supermajority wants to exterminate Jews....on the other hand, what if it is the "superminority" that wants to exterminate Jews?
Obviously, exterminating Jews is horrible....but what if the issue is not so obvious?
...say, abortion, which most people who have actually experienced the situation should recognize is a complex issue with points for both sides....?
...or, say, handgun ownership, in which most of the rhetoric is on the side of banning guns, but most of the facts are on the side of not banning any non-automatic hand-held weapons....?

What obligation does the minority have to the majority? What obligation does the majority have to the minority.....?

For a Democratic candidate to get my vote for President in 2004:

1) He must not favor bugging out of Iraq, or turning it over to the UN.
2) If he is against the Patriot Act, he must explain which parts of it he he believes to be worth preserving--because law enforcement does need some of the things in it to do their jobs.
3) He must not oppose building missile defense.
4) He must make it clear that, while he may seek alliances with other nations, he will not ultimately put America's security into the hands of the UN, the Europeans, or anyone else.

Of course, there are other things the Democrat must do to win my consideration. He must stop whining about how "tax cuts for the rich have ruined the economy" and start talking about what specifically he will do to fix the economy--and "raise taxes on the rich" is not going to be enough of an answer.

He should be un-dogmatic on school choice and on social security privatization, even if he doesn't actively endorse them he should not actively oppose them.

Those are my issues. That makes it likely I'll be voting for Bush, but far from a foregone conclusion. Having a Democrat in the White House with a Republican congress can be a good thing for controlling spending and for making reasonable compromises on important issues (and Republicans are highly likely to keep the Congress).

As secretary of an active county Republican party unit in Wisconsin (Dane County), and as one of the people who provide input and steering for the Republican Party of Wisconsin (RPW) resolutions each year, I see little or no sign of any welcome mats being put out for whatever number of Republican homosexuals there may be in this state.

Occasionally here, someone pipes up with the usual buzzwords of "inclusiveness" and "big-tent" politics. That's as far as it ever gets. Most Republican activists are not interested at all in bringing homosexuals into our party. We feel it would be too divisive an issue, splitting off major chunks of our growing voter base, in return for adding some paltry numbers of homosexuals who, in any case, would never be comforatable in our crowd.

The thing is, we are not -- and probably never will be -- the party of the minorities, whether defined by race, religion, ethnicity, sexual practices or any other such characteristic. And our crowd would not be all that comfortable with too many of these people swarming around us, looking for approval for attitudes, practices, conditions, and status for which few of us would ever willingly grant such approval. And which of you can say that we haven't done very well with this approach ever since the Republican Party was founded in the 1850s?

So, to America's homosexuals who are also active or latent supporters of low taxes, limited government, a tough US military, citizen gun rights, and even Republican peculiarities such as limiting womens' abortion rights; thanks for the help. But kindly do so privately at the polls or sitting at your desks where you write your checks. Because we would be lying through our teeth if we were to tell you that significant numbers of us will move over and allow you to get your feet in the doors of influence in the Republican Party.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

"Even though Andrew Sullivan is routinely smeared by his fellow gays as a 'homocon,' a 'sellout,' a 'traitor,' and so on, it is inarguably the case--inarguably--that this one man has done more than any living person to make people on the right take gay people seriously, and to even take the case for gay marriage seriously."

But he hasn't done as much (at least from what I've read, and I don't think I've missed a major piece of his in the last decade) to make gay people take conservatism seriously. A lot of reasonable-minded gays who could probably be won over by conservative arguments balk: they think they'd have to align themselves with people who think we're fundamentally immoral. Principles aren't invalidated by the personalities of those who adhere to them, no, but we have real lives to live like everyone else. It's not hard to understand why people wouldn't be high-minded enough make themselves part of a movement in which they're going to spend the rest of their lives hearing what threats to society they are.

Sullivan tends to skate over that. When he addresses gays, Sullivan argues that conservatism as a worldview and political platform is good for us, which is fine. It's a shame that he hasn't shown how he, as a human being, reconciles himself to conservatism, as practiced. It wouldn't move Barney Frank, but I think there'd be more of an audience than some might imagine.

Arnold: You are, of course, living in rural Wisconsin, and are in no position to speak for the position of Republicans in places like Milwakee, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, or anywhere else.

In fact, it is simply a fact that you do not; the Republican Unity Coalition includes a number of elected Republicans and Republicans of prominence; even respected "hard right wing" figues like Grover Norquist are supportive of it.

If your party holds open primaries, you are also not in a position to tell people who may or may not run to become delegate, or who may or may not become involved in Republican politics in other counties, municipalities, or anywhere else. You don't speak for New York Republicans, Milwaukee Republicans, Chicago Republicans, Pittsburgh Republicans, Los Angeles Republicans, or any of them.

Your party is, I believe, likely to lose on this issue sooner or later, as the long-term opinion polls continue to track to greater and greater acceptance of gay people. Where you are today in Mt. Horeb Wisconsin is not necessarily where your party is going to be in ten years.

There are more and more gay Republicans being elected to office every year. Thus the question for those of you with such latent hostility is whether you would rather have Democrats in those offices, or would rather simply deal with people with whom you have this minor issue that really isn't any of your business anyway.

Sean: Sullivan is one man, fighting what battles he can. He cannot be the Gay Messiah, or all things to all people. He has had one role to play, and played it very well. There need to be others involved in this sort of thing. Will any of them step up to the task?

Oh, by the way, Arnold: I hate to break it to you, but there are an awful lot of Republicans who would like to drive atheists such as yourself out of the party.

Indeed, I believe that Theodore Roosevelt would have called you a "filthy little atheist." It's what he called Thomas Paine, anyway.

I doubt your Objectivist views would play too well with the Trent Lott brand of Republican, in parts of the deep South especially.

Somehow the party manages to fit dangerous and pernicious unbelievers such as yourself into its midsts. ;-)

No, Dean, it's not his job to take requests for song-and-dance routines. He gets to prioritize his life, just like the rest of us. But he obviously wants to win gays over to conservatism, rather than simply winning a certain set of conservatives over to living peaceably with gays. And I think that if you're an open homosexual who wants to win other open homosexuals over to conservatism, the issue I described is one that just has to be dealt with, in practice.

"1) He must not favor bugging out of Iraq, or turning it over to the UN."

No problem. So long as he doesn't expect the UN to pay for it.

"3) He must not oppose building missile defense."

Because? The greatest threats we're facing are much lower tech than what would be addressed by star wars.

"4) He must make it clear that, while he may seek alliances with other nations, he will not ultimately put America's security into the hands of the UN, the Europeans, or anyone else."

That said, he must recognize that going out of his way to alienate the UN or the Europeans is AGAINST our national security interests. He must not cut of our collective nose to spit our face. He should also recognize that while allies are expected to support us when our national security is directly threatened, we shouldn't be surprised when they act in their own selfish interest when our security is not directly threatened. It's no different than we'd do. We opposed France in Suez and that didn't destroy NATO.

Much maligned France is far more threatened by the fascism of radical Islam than the US is. We should make common cause with them rather than getting into a petty insult contest.

Because? The greatest threats we're facing are much lower tech than what would be addressed by star wars.

Because we have had it shown to us in no uncertain terms that we live in a world where maniacs will wreak mass destruction upon us even when they are facing the utter certainty of their own destruction.

The nuclear threat is greater today than at any time in our history.

You know what? I don't want to debate this with you. Clinton favored missile defense, and Gore favored it, too, so if you voted for either of them then you voted for a pro-missile-defense candidate. A majority of voters have favored missile defense for two decades. Only a small hard-left core oppose it, and I'm glad to say that most in their party have more common sense than that.

Regardless, it is part of the cost of my vote--period. I've been reading about this for 20 years and I know exactly where I stand--and I was glad that people like Clinton and Gore stood with me on that, by the way.

That said, he must recognize that going out of his way to alienate the UN or the Europeans is AGAINST our national security interests.

Since I don't believe the current administration has done any such thing, and don't believe this is any particular danger of it doing so in the future, I am not particularly moved by this line of argument.

If the Democratic candidate wishes to take the position that we have "alienated the world," he will not get my vote, for we have done no such thing--no moreso than countless other Presidents, and no more than countless other regimes (and a good bit less than many other regimes, in fact, including the likes of France).

If the Democrat wishes to say that we have been more hamhanded than necessary, then I will listen carefully to his arguments. They'd better not be shallow, stupid arguments that fail to recognize that, in fact, previous Democratic and Republican administrations, we have acted without UN authority and done things that were unpopular with our allies, or people living in allied countries. So has every other major power in the world.

Lengthy lectures on how very, very important it is not to piss off France and the UN will get the TV shut off and my volunteerism for the Bush campaign, because coming out of any establishment Democrat it would be A) Rank hypocricy, and B) a clear signal that being nice to the UN is the sine-qua-non of their foreign policy.

So we will see what we see once the conventions are upon us. Right now Kerry is making me nervous, but he may be able to talk me into him. I want to at least give him a chance.

Dean: This is a terrific post and a terrific thread. Thank you. I have long supported the Log Cabin Republicans and the Republican Unity Coalition, and I will do so now more than ever. I have long admired homosexual and pro-homosexual conservatives and libertarians such as Andrew Sullivan, Camille Paglia, Eric Scheie, Jeff Soyer, Paul Varnell, Barry Goldwater, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Ingrid Barnes, Norah Vincent, Dale Carpenter, Robert Bauman, Marvin Liebman, Rich Tafel, Arthur Silber, Chris Matthew Sciabarra, J. Edgar Hoover, Whittaker Chambers, and General Edwin Anderson Walker, and such great men's men of the past as Richard the Lion-Hearted, Julius Caesar, and Alexander the Great. And Sappho was a HomoCon, enriching and supporting, not subverting, the Hellenic culture in which she thrived. The Homosexual Conservative position is the only one for me. If, by supporting the men and women you mentioned, we can sway President Bush in our direction and away from the radicals, he will get my vote. We must win this War for the survival of our freedom, both abroad and here at home.

As usual, I'm somewhat bewildered. What's all the fuss?

When I was in rehab, I found myself hanging with a small group of guys: a physician, an engineer, and a young man who eventually admitted that he aspired to be a ballerina. It turned out I was the only straight one in the gang. The doc knew the engineer was gay, and vice versa, but I hadn't a clue until they told me. Duh.

The point? They're people first, of course. And, based on my small sample, rather charming.

However, I'll echo Gary's opening salvo in this thread. The overriding issue of the day is domestic security. Is there a Democrat who gets it? Lieberman, maybe. Anybody else?

Sean, I can only repeat something I've tried to observe here: there is more than one brand of "liberal" and more than one brand of "conservative." And, no matter which party you align yourself with, you always find yourself aligned with people you strong disagree with on some issues.

That being the case, it is direct activism and direct involvement within both parties that will lead to the biggest changes long-term.

You don't think there are gay-hostile Democrats? Shit. Let me tell you something about the blue-collar Union guys I've worked with.

The question, therefore, is not, "what will conservatives do for me, how will I get them to come to me?" (Sullivan's done a terrific job on that.) The question is, "what can I do to meet conservatives halfway, make friends with the conservatives who are open-minded, make headway with the conservatives who are afraid of me and think I want to seduce and pervert their children?"

It's not a question of them coming to you. It's a question of doing what it takes to make the difference.

There's only so much any one individual can do. But direct activism is the key to making it happen--and activism is rarely a long-term success if people don't involve themselves in both parties.

Dean,

I never once have said "I am an atheist"; what I always have said (since I discovered their website): "I am an apatheist". Which means, absolutely, positively, that I don't give a damn about the godly stuff and even whether or not it could exist, because I see very clearly that is has no impact on everyday life in any way that I can measure, or for which I can even detect its presence. That clearly means to me that all arguments for or against religion, plainly speaking, are bull shit.

And I admire objectivism greatly, and I think it is the purest of all political philosophies. But no true Randian objectivist would classify me as one. Because I don't totally fit their mold.

And I am involved on behalf of Republican Party organizational activities, and I am loyal to causes that I take on. Which means that I take a pinch of incense like all the rest of the fools whenever the situation calls for it. And I sure as hell pledge allegiance to "one nation under god", because I served that flag and the Republic for which it stands.

(But when I'm at a political gathering, and folks start praying like they meant it, I politely and quietly head for the coffee machine or the urinal, whichever is closer.)

As for bringing homosexuals into the Republican Party. Sean had it exactly right. If these good folk want to vote conservative, we'll gladly take their votes. If these good people want to spend conservative, we'll gladly take their political contributions. We just don't want the Republican Party to become like the public school system, where the teachers are compelled to chirp homothink and the kids are compelled to listen to diatribes such as "Heather Has Two Mommies". Because we wouldn't want all the Republicans to sneak out to the urinal simultaneously.

As for inclusiveness, real-world politics goes something like this:

Walter Kerr, a World War II journalist, was quoting Vincent Sheean, another writer, who once asked Ivan Maisky, the Soviet ambassador to Great Britain, why he, a one time Menshevik (member of the minority of the old-time Russian Social Democratic Party) why he had joined Lenin's Bolshevik faction. Maisky's answer explains most successful politics, in dictatorships such as Stalin's Russia or in constitutional republics such as the USA:

"Vell, I look around and I see there are more Bolsheviks than Mensheviks. So I become Bolshevik."

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

"You know what? I don't want to debate this with you. Clinton favored missile defense, and Gore favored it, too, so if you voted for either of them then you voted for a pro-missile-defense candidate. A majority of voters have favored missile defense for two decades."

Your blog, your prerogative. But it's worth noting yesterday's low-tech poison attack on the Senate office building. Furthermore, I note the contradiction of how you throw a snit fit whenever you think someone assumes anything about your politics but you don't hesitate to assume that I voted for Clinton and Gore. Furthermore, saying that something MUST be ok just because a majority supports and calling opponents a bunch of hard core leftists is a pretty weak argument for someone who proposes an intelligent approach to issues.

"Lengthy lectures on how very, very important it is not to piss off France and the UN will get the TV shut off and my volunteerism for the Bush campaign,"

Conversely, any candidate who acts like the French and UN can be gratitutiously bashed doesn't have a prayer to get my vote. The administration's eagerness to block a UN peacekeeping mission in Ivory Coast simply because the French are proposing the resolution is particularly distasteful and contrary to the president's professed ideals of liberty and freedom (and making sure the UN's words are credible).

Any candidate who acts like cooperating with the UN and European allies is appeasement and treason can kiss my rear end since I don't want a candidate whose going to jeopardize our national security for the sake of a little egotistical chest beating. A candidate must realize that an alliance is a two way street.

Extremist Islamic fascism is an international threat and requires international cooperation. The US can't beat this menace alone. Given France's large (and somewhat radicalized) Muslim population, they seem like a logical ally to anyone who puts fighting such extremism ahead of petty spats. You might not want to hear this, you may wish to keep your head buried in the sand but I'm going to say it anyway. We didn't win the Cold War alone. We didn't defeat Nazi fascism alone. And we're not going to win this alone. And that tyrants like Isiais Afewerki of Eritrea, the House of Saud and the freak from Turkmenistan were part of the coalition of the willing for freedom and liberty doesn't make me feel any better.

If the Republicans wish to keep re-fighting the Iraq war (where France and Germany opposed the unnecessary war) instead of moving on to deal with the real enemy (where France and Germany have a similiar interest in defeating the fascism), then it might prompt me to vote for a Democratic president for the first time in years.

"If the Democrat wishes to say that we have been more hamhanded than necessary, then I will listen carefully to his arguments."

Although I'm not a fan of John Kerry, this is essentially his line.

One thing that annoys me is the line that we can't put our national security in the hands of (and this part must be said with the most utter contempt) France and the UN.

Someone as independent minded as you should recognize how bogus this argument is.

This argument doesn't recognize one simple fact. When we invaded Afghanistan, most of the world (including the "surrender monkeys") supported us. They did so because they recognized the Taliban's support for al-Qaeda as a threat to America and to western civilization.

Iraq was different because almost no one, outside the Bush and Blair governments, believed Saddam was a threat to America or Western Europe.

Why did the invasion of Iraq provoke so much more domestic and worldwide anger than Afghanistan? Because one was widely viewed as justified for domestic and international security and the other wasn't. You obviously disagree but don't attribute false motives to those on the other side.

I doubt families of those German troops serving in Afghanistan upon the request of the Bush administration particularly appreciates their country being labelled by some as part of the axis of weasel. Nor, for that matter, the French paratroopers who risked their lives to rescue hundreds of American citizens in Ivory Coast upon the request of the American government. Smearing these countries is not the way our friends who do us favors upon our request should be treated, even if they disagree with us on ancilary issues.

We're certainly not being hold hostage by them and no one is advocating that we should. So let's disagree respectfully like the civilized country we say we are.

Brian, the problem is specifically with France, not Germany. Notice in the US, there is very little anti-German sentiment, but a ton of anti-French sentiment, even though both Germany and France had similar positions on the war. The reason is that France really tried to go against the US, far more then merely making its opinion known; France actively opposed us, went out of its way to insult and belittle us and our allies (isn't diplomacy a two-way street?) and basically earned its poor reputation.

I guess I must have missed the newpaper articles on how most of the world supported the US in attacking Afghanistan. Because all I remember is headline after headline about how the US invasion was going to:
1) Turn out the Arab Street and turn the entire ME against the US, and
2) cause the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Afghan civilians, and
3) be a quagmire and the deathground of American soldiers.

Why is missile defence and issue??

Because it is a marker or indicator. It's a proxy for the self-defence issue. Being "anti-missile defence" stands for being against defending ourselves.

As an aside, I just want to say that this thread has actually turned un-gay, a first for Dean's World!

Mike, thank you for an intelligent response to my point. If all critics of France took your reasonable approach, rather than cheese eating surrender monkeys bla bla bla, you'd have no argument from me. It's ironic since before the Iraq invasion question, I'd been very critical of France's foreign policy especially vis a vis Africa. It's odd for me to defend them. I guess I'm not defending them against all criticism just criticism unfairly or immaturely launched.

So, taking bribes from dictators and defying the very EU economic rules you created are proper behavior then? Good to know.

Jon, it's just as deplorable as giving bribes to dictators in breach of your own professed committment to liberty and freedom.

That list of names in my last comment was by no means exhaustive.

For those wishing to see arguments for homosexual conservatism (why homosexuals should be conservative, why heterosexual conservatives should support homosexuals or at least leave them alone), I recommend the Independent Gay Forum:
http://www.indegayforum.org/

"Lavender (But Not Pink)", a Lesbian Conservative gives a good case for homosexual marriage, for homosexuals in the military, and lots and lots of good links to sites on these issues and to many other sites and blogs with a non-Leftist (conservative, libertarian, Objectivist) and pro-homosexual viewpoint:
http://lavenderbutnotpink.com/index.html

Some basic conservative beliefs that I have in defense of homosexuality:

1) The primacy, centrality, finality, and sanctity of the Individual. Individual rights, individual freedom, individual privacy, reverence for individual differences, and individual responsibility. Less government. Government should protect our rights to life, liberty, and property, and otherwise leave us alone to run our lives as we see fit. No Big Brother. No Nanny State. These values have been articulated by numerous conservatives (e.g., E. Merrill Root, Dean Clarence E. Manion, H. L. "Bill" Richardson, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Justice Harry Blackmun, Justice Anthony Kennedy) in numerous ways for a very long time. It's obvious why homosexuals should value this above all.

2) A strong military defense. It's obvious why homosexuals should support this. We need to protect our country and our Western civilization against enemies such as Saudi Arabia who would impose Shari'a on us and stone homosexuals to death. Take that quiz Dean showed us and compare how homosexuals fare in America, Europe, and Israel vs. most Muslim countries.

3) Individual self-defense. The right of the people to keep and bear arms. This one should be obvious. I don't see how anybody can be against defending himself/herself, that's suicidal. And homosexuals have more enemies to defend themselves against than anybody else. Call that paranoid if you wish, but it's true. I support the Pink Pistols 100%.
http://www.pinkpistols.org/index2.html
My blog-friend Jeff Soyer at Alphecca, gay (now rabid) gun nut in Vermont gives lots of info on this and other things:
http://alphecca.com/

4) The right to life. I used to be an ardent pro-abortionist ("pro-choice"), but, as I've discussed here before, the dishonesty of so many on the pro-abortion side has swayed me the other way, and I'm against at least late-term abortions except to save the woman's life.
Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians:
http://www.plagal.org/
Here's the essay that finally convinced me:
http://www.plagal.org/op-ed/1-20-97a.html
Abortion may well become the "final solution" to the "homosexual problem". I want no part of it. Beam me up! I don't want to live in a world without homosexuals, without men like Michelangelo, without women like Sappho.

5) Reverence for that which is ancient. This is the very core of conservatism. Homosexuality is more ancient than the pyramids of Egypt. Homosexual men and women have been with us "since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. " There has never been a time or a country in which homosexuals did not exist, and where they were honored or at least left alone instead of persecuted, they have helped to enrich and beautify every culture, most definitely including our own Western high culture. Even in spite of persecution they have done so! I believe that homosexuality is an integral part of the Divine order of the Gods and the Goddesses. Homosexuals should stop talking about "progress" and emphasize instead the antiquity and eternity of homosexuality. It is those who want to eradicate homosexuality who are the radicals.

Jesus, Dean...your myopic view of Dubya's gay rights record makes "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" seem downright transparent.

I know that the majority of American's are against gay marriage. I know that 100 years ago the majority of American's were against sufferage. The majority was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

Since politicians---as you so astutely pointed out to us deluded wretches in Plato's Cave---want to win, I cannot expect them to do what's right. That's why I'm so happy when someone like Gov. Dean or Rep. Kucinich does the right thing even though it is unpopular.

Those men have something called a "spine," Dean. The closest thing to a spine Dubya has is President Rove's hand up his backside, moving his lips.

Steven Malcolm Anderson,

There are overwhelming numbers of us who have no intentions of allowing the homosexual movement to play the same kind of role in the Republican Party that it apparently does among Democrats.

We fully understand that homosexuality has been present in all societies since the dawn of human history, mostly as a forbidden set of sexual perversions that nevertheless have attracted a following in every age and place. We are not interested in destroying them or even in persecuting them.

On the contrary, there are those of us who might want to make political capital from their votes and their money. For example, I am an NRA election volunteer coordinator as well as a local Republican Party elected officer. Which means that my interest in homosexuals around election time is strictly in terms of trade-offs. Namely, what will it take to get your votes for our gun rights, and what do you want in return?

But most people with normal sexual impulses -- male and female alike -- are uncomfortable in the presence of those openly known to practice abnormal sex, especially with persons of the same gender, with whom abnormal sex is the only kind possible. Perhaps this is a result of the deepest level of cultural conditioning, learned in very early childhood. In any case, we each of us live within the strictures of the mindset that we acquired in that childhood, and it usually stays with us until death.

The only way in which typical Americans will tolerate homosexuality and its practitioners is as a set of practices that rarely -- if ever -- leave the closets in which it has traditionally been hidden from the public gaze. That is the first consideration.

The second consideration is that most of us will never, ever recognize the validity of a marriage contract undertaken been two men or two women. If nothing else, this will lead to one state after another passing laws -- and constitutional amendments -- forbidding the legal sanction of homosexual marriages. In the end, this will result in an amendment to the United States constitution insuring that no law shall be passed legalizing any marriage other than between two adults of opposite gender.

The third consideration is that homosexuality, taught in many public schools as if it were normative and acceptable conduct, will -- in the end -- help kill the public school system of this country, as increasing number of parents opt to send their children to private religious or secular schools. The public school system, at that juncture, will survive solely as the dumping ground for children of the black and latino ghettos, for mongoloids of all types who now populate the special education classes sustained at great expense by the taxpayers of this country, and for others who will not fit into the private school systems.

The homosexual agenda, if that is in fact an accurate word for it, should focus on disappearing from the public scrutiny. Because the deepest-held feelings of the overwhelming millions cannot be legislated out of existence.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

"But when I'm at a political gathering, and folks start praying like they meant it, I politely and quietly head for the coffee machine or the urinal, whichever is closer."

Just as long as you remember which is which once you get there, Mr. H. By the way, you do know that Mongoloids in the biological sense are kicking everyone else's ass on standardized tests, college admissions, and post-graduate education, right? Just checking.

Dean, you don't have to lecture me like a preschooler about how group labels don't tell you everything that's inside a person, and still less do you need to start a game of can-you-top-this? about Bigoted Democrat Union Members I Have Known. I also never said that I was talking about what Sullivan needs to do to win me over personally. Calm thyself.

What I was saying was this: a lot of gays are convinced that the conservative movement is not willing to work with them at all...meaning that even if they were willing to compromise, they wouldn't trust the other side to be. Leaving aside whether they're correct (which they aren't in a lot of cases), the fact remains that it's a belief that anyone who wants to convince more gays to line up on the conservative side needs to deal with. If Andrew Sullivan doesn't see that as his job, and only wants to address how conservative principles are good and right, that's his business. But I think it limits the number of gays he convinces not to think that the way you "get them to come to you" is to make yourself their A-lister dupe, and that's a shame.

Dear Arnie:

I realize that you may feel uncomfortable, or even sickened, by the thought that some people have different kinds of sex than you. I realize that your qualms are deep-seated, viseral, and real. I am truly sorry that other people's orgams fighten and horrify you so.

I feel sorry for you, Arnie. Really I do, I'll keep you in my prayers.

But ya know what? You're gonna have to suck it up, grow up, and deal with like a fucking adult.

Because if you seriously believe that equal rights can only be given to those whom you, Arnie Harris of Mt. Horeb WI, feel good about---well, that makes you a bigot. And a fool.

There was a time, not that long ago, when the most reasonable people in America believed that African-Americans were subhuman. They denied African-Americans the right to vote, or own property, or marry whom they wished, because that was "normal." And they thought that such an unequal society could survive as long as the darkies knew their place. Kept off the streets. Didn't flaunt their blackness. Because if the civil rights agenda ever inflitrated our schools and our society, America would collapse.

They were wrong, Arnie, and so are you. And for pretty much the same reasons.

Because no matter how much you dress it up, bigotry is a pretty ugly way to live.

Because the deepest-held feelings of the overwhelming millions cannot be legislated out of existence.

You are right -- they cannot be LEGISLATED out of existance. But they can die out on their own as society progresses and advances. As more people come out and live their lives as open gay men and lesbian women, and present themselves as couples, and have supportive family and friends, the American people as a whole willcontinue to move more and more towards full acceptance of homosexuals.

We are well on the way to a time when a large majority of Americans see the unremarkable acceptance of homosexuality as something that self-evident. This is history unfolding, and it requires nothing more then a continuation of historic trends that have been underway for centuries.

Mike Silverman:

I think you are seriously fooling yourself about longterm American acceptance of homosexuality. Jews of the so-called "enlightenment" in Europe mistakenly imagined the same thing about anti-Semitism. At about the same time Adolf Hitler was being born in Braunau-Am-Inn.

Don Myers:

Okay. Call me a bigot if you want. I'm thick skinned and don't give a damn. But you're making a strategic error comparing homosexuals to blacks. One day you'll find they hate you as much as Latinos do, because you threaten the very basis of their sense of manhood. Also, my name's not "Arnie", unless you want me to refer to you as "Donnie", or something equally ludicrous.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Arnold Harris, there is more than merely forced toleration on the part of the people at stake. No law can legislate hatred out of people's hearts, yet we have laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of race do we not? Here is not whether people approve of same-sex relations or not, which the state can't force someone to believe in their heart to be good if the person doesn't, but the question of the state's role in these matters. No, the state is not there to tell school children what is acceptable sexual behavior or not. That answers your third point. Education is to teach objective subjects, not the virtues or vices of this sex act or that. However, if an Episcopalian priest wishes to marry two men together, does not the ECUSA have the right to do so? Is not the state's only concern in matters sexual the protection of the rights of the individuals, whether it be parents who do not want their children to be taught contrary to their beliefs or the Episcopalian men who wish to marry or the woman who dies and wished her same-sex partner to have custody of their child? The state should be remaining neutral on such matters, for it is there to protect our inalienable rights, not act as a moral police, whether of the Jesse Helms or Hillary Clinton type. I think we should all be very careful before we start accusing our fellow Deniacs (Not Howard) of various charges.

Arnold Harris wrote:

"Mike Silverman:

I think you are seriously fooling yourself about longterm American acceptance of homosexuality. Jews of the so-called "enlightenment" in Europe mistakenly imagined the same thing about anti-Semitism. At about the same time Adolf Hitler was being born in Braunau-Am-Inn."

Mr. Harris: YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT THAT!! I do NOT believe in "Progress", Mr. Silverman. Complacency will destroy us. We, all of us, heterosexual _and_ homosexual, androsexual _and_ gynosexual, men _and_ women, we, all and each, must FIGHT to gain and to keep our values, our freedoms, our sacred rights. We are at War, both abroad and at home, and the Enemy is the same. I am convinced that we are now living in what can only be called Weimar America. The parallels are all too ominous.
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hitler.html

I've been sounding that warning for quite some time now, here and on my own blog. Ironic that Arnold Harris, from a quite different viewpoint, makes my point for me, and so well. I consider him a most worthy adversary.

But, when _I_ make the same point he did, I am accused of being hysterical, of insulting Jews by equating them with homosexuals (I would take it as a compliment to be equated with homosexuals, there are many times I wish I was one, even despite the persecution), of insulting my adversaries by comparing them with Nazis (that last is true, many of them are indeed Nazis in all but name, and that is certainly not meant as a compliment), and almost inevitably some fool invokes that idiotic "Godwin's Law" to shut off debate.

If we passively allow historic trends to continue, we shall end up, and sooner rather than later, under totalitarianism. We must FIGHT for freedom.

Arnie, equal rights for all Americans is not, and cannot become, a "strategic error." It's the foundation of our democracy.

And believe me, "Arnie" is the most polite thing I plan to call you. It's either "Arnie" or "Tightassed neophobic pinhead." I thought "Arnie" sounded better, but it's your choice.

Dean,

Awesome, thought-provoking post.

Another Republican leader/group fighting the FMA stupidity is a great guy named Chuck Muth. www.lawfullywedded.com/ is a project of his organization, Citizen Outreach (www.citizenoutreach.com). He also tilts his lance at anti-liberty, big-gov't windmills like the Patriot Act and Bush's half-trillion dollar deficits. Muth is taking on the FMA from the federalist viewpoint, and pretty articulately, too.

I forgot to address Arnie. I'd also suggest you're myopic in assuming that NRA guys have to "trade" votes with gay people. You presuppose the impossibility (already debunked very nicely by Steven Malcolm Anderson) that gay people would WANT to vote for both gay rights and to protect their gun rights. What makes you assume that I'm incapable of loving another man at least as much as I love my Trijicon-sighted Heckler & Koch USP .45 loaded chock-full of 230-grain Black Talon/Ranger +P's? Really, Arnie. There's a whole new market the NRA isn't tapping, because of the short-sightedness you display. Open your mind and step out of the way of the future.

I'd much rather be called a jerk than have someone mangle my name without authorization--indeed, after I told him to cut it the hell out. Blech.

Steven Malcolm Anderson:
"If we passively allow historic trends to continue, we shall end up, and sooner rather than later, under totalitarianism. We must FIGHT for freedom."

This topic seems to bring out the worst in my personality, so I hope I can tackle it here without being an ass, but...if capitalizing and exclamation pointing and bold tagging every sentence has only convinced people you're hysterical, might it not be possible that there's a better way to put your point across? There's something about flat declarations of the "Santorum wants me in a concentration camp" kind that tends to signal that you're not open to nuanced discussion and give-and-take.

It's 2004. After the last forty years of American cultural history, everyone is tired of explaining himself over and over, of being informed by the government what the proper emotions are, and of having to walk on eggshells around this week's officially-designated pity party group (not just the PC kind, by the way; the Department of Transportation seems to have plenty of reasons we should all treat it with gentle sympathy lately, too). People want a rest.

Unfortunately, in a free society full of competing interests, you don't get one. Not completely. But it's especially difficult, in this climate, to distinguish passionate commitment to principle from the mere fits of hyperbolic temper going off everywhere. That may mean that if you seriously think America's heading toward totalitarianism, you have to wait to introduce the word (which tends to polarize people) until you've done a sober, steady job of convincing them that the characteristics it describes are there. But if you really want to persuade people, as opposed to just putting your views out there so you can say I told you so when they're corroborated, you have to consider your audience.

I think the reason Homosexuals have generally not fit well with Republicans is because of a fundamental difference in the nature of the parties.
From my perspective, Democrats are all about identity and root issues, whereas Republicans are all about ideas and situations.

That isn't to imply that Democrats don't have ideas...

What I mean is, Democrats are made up of people who have singular self-identification aspects: "gays", "union", "pro-choice", "socialist", "black", "minority", etc. Many of these people are single-issue voters. The homosexual voting bloc seems to consider themselves homosexual first, and anything else a distant second, if at all. They vote for whatever will allow them to more openly express their homosexuality.
Pretty much the same thing for "pro-choice" voters, or "black" voters.

But you can be Republican without being a part of any group. We shift allegiences. Some years, gun rights are more important to me; other years, national defense is more of a priority. Republicans are often characterized as "rich old white businessmen", but even a cursory glance reveals that lie. It's also why people like Clarence Thomas and Andrew Sullivan are so reviled: they refuse to allow their identity to dictate their politics.

What defines a Republican? A desire to live within existing laws, rules, and social mores; to work hard and earn comfort and security on the basis of individual effort/skill/knowledge/expertise; to place what is good for us individually behind the good for our children and our grandchildren; an identity as an American above all other identity tags.

So for Homosexuals to ever be integrated into the Republican party, I think you'd have to see the "homosexual" self-identification label dissolve first. As long as the Log Cabin Republicans remain such, I think their impact will be minimal.

I apologize if I offended anyone, it's just the way I've experienced my political party.

Sean Kinsell:

I stand by every word I wrote. That's tough if you don't like the way I write. I don't give a hoot or a holler if you think I'm hysterical. I've given enough URLs in my comments here and there to back up my arguments. I'm not going to change the way I write to please you or anybody else. You're not my boss. Dean is the boss here and he can ban me if he doesn't like me.

Quite frankly, I almost wish you weren't on my side on this. You and Mike Silverman can go on believing in your illusions of inevitable Progress, but if you do, then why bother to write anything, argue with anybody? Why not just sit back and watch history flow? That's a fatalistic attitude that I have no use for, and complacency will kill us just as surely as despair and giving up.

I have much more respect for most of my opponents on this issue with whom I've dealt here, Wince and Nod, Arnold Harris, Scott Harris, Mark Noonan, Kevin D., Nathan, who at least have strong convictions and aren't afraid to express them, than I do for somebody supposedly on my side who's always telling me to calm down and be reasonable.

You know what I've learned about "reasonable" people? They're unable to reason! They're unable to follow an argument, because they're too busy complaining about the _tone_ in which it's delivered.

Yes, I write in an emotional, passionate, often angry style. So do all my favorite writers, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ayn Rand, Camille Paglia, Oswald Spengler, G. K. Chesterton, Jim Goad, John Kusch, Rachel Lucas, the authors of the Bible -- and Dean and Rosemary Esmay.

I have had it.

Nathan wrote:

What defines a Republican? A desire to live within existing laws, rules, and social mores; to work hard and earn comfort and security on the basis of individual effort/skill/knowledge/expertise; to place what is good for us individually behind the good for our children and our grandchildren; an identity as an American above all other identity tags.

Um, excuse me, but I do NOT think that that definition of is limited to Republican. I don't DEFINE myself as gay. No one I work with knows and why should they? I live within existing laws, rules and (albeit liberal) social mores; I work hard as an individual to support my family. I also try to remember there are some less fortunate folks whom I can help out.

equating all Democrats with whining social blocks is like equating all Republicans with fanatical fundamentalists. There IS no homosexual voting block; however, in our don't-blame-me,-I'm a-victim society, there are groups of people who presume to speak for all.

They don't. I doubt whether the hysterical Christian Right speaks for most Christians, really, but they claim to.

I used to be a Republican until the party became too obsessed with imposing a subset of narrow social mores on everybody else. I agree that some of the Dems can be just as bad.

but I do get the feeling that some people are painting gay folk with a broad brush as family-destroying pedophiles who are leeringly obsessed with sex. (Considering the NFL halftime show, it seems that it's not gays obsessed with sex).

the likelihood is that all of you have a nice, responsible, totally normal coworker who is gay, who is just as revolted as you are with the crassness of our current society, its cheapening of sex, its worship of violence. And you just don't know how painful it is, when you make those fag jokes, and when he or she can't mention the gender of the person they go to the movies with, because aside from the accident of sexuality, you really aren't that different.

it's not the wackos of the gay fringe (visible as they are) who want to get married. It's those of us making good salaries and taking care of our families who look just like you, who want some equal protection.

This polarization is fundamentally harmful. And dangerous. It's time for the fringes of the republican party to get out of the bedroom and for the middle ground to meet and do business. This world is too messed up to be obsessing with sex.

And, by the way, Sean Kisnsell, just to show you how reasonable I can be:
NYYYAAAAAAAARRRRGHHH!!!!