In an op-ed in The Advocate, Cythia Yockey claims that the only way the GLBT community can ever get equal rights is by embracing the right. The full title of the piece:
Equality Will Come From the Right
Why Andrew Breitbart is a better friend to gays than is the Obama administration.
I have good news and bad news about conservatives and LGBT equality. The good news is that LGBT equality will come from the right. The bad news is that this will happen only if we learn how to talk to conservatives — both gay and straight — and listen to them in return.
Take off your thinking caps, let's take a look at this hot mess. And remember, this is in The Advocate, which is supposed to be pro-GLBT rights.
Yockey starts by pointing out that the GOP has made advances toward acknowledging LGBT rights. In particular, the Log Cabin Republicans were instrumental in getting DADT repealed. She forgets to mention that they were fighting the Bush (and admittedly at the end, the Obama) administration the entire way. She names "Big-name Republicans" that are (kinda) pro-GLBT: Laura Bush. Ken Mehlman. GOProud. Andrew Breitbart. But here's the thing. She forgets to mention any, you know, elected Republicans.
This summer, when CPAC organizers announced that GOProud would not be allowed a cosponsorship or other official role at the 2012 conference, Breitbart and another influential conservative, Pajamas Media cofounder Roger Simon (who has a gay son), immediately announced they would not attend unless GOProud is welcome.
Yeah, but at the same time, nothing changed. So Brietbart didn't go. Yup, one conservative blogger skipped CPAC. See, gays are almost in the bus! The amount of emphasis she puts on the fact that two bloggers boycotted CPAC because of this serves to illustrate how many people didn't care that GOProud was excluded from CPAC.
And, as you knew it would, it gets better:
The bad news is that regardless of this vast support from the right, LGBTs on the left have only about a year to learn the language of conservatism and persuade the conservative movement that we have an unalienable right to equality. That’s because conservatives now control a majority of state legislatures and probably will also control the White House and Congress come 2013. Passing an anti–marriage equality amendment to the Constitution in Congress and getting it ratified by the states probably will be one of the first things conservatives will do, unless LGBT folks start supporting Breitbart, GOProud, and others on the right who are making real changes in our favor.
See, we have vast support from the right. But if we don't vote for them, one of the first thing they are going to do is pass an anti-marriage amendment. Because of, you know, all that vast support. It's like she's suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. I swear to Allah, does she not even read her own writing? The other item so handily glossed over: the LEFT already supports GLBT rights. We need to go begging to the right (who already supports us anyway, natch)...because the left already does.
I'm just going to ignore the idea that Conservatives "probably will also control the White House and Congress come 2013." That's wishful thinking, and saying we need to vote for the winner because they are winning is, while a nice tautology, not a very useful political policy.
Furthermore, by golly, we LGBTs should also want to be conservatives anyway, and they should like us! After all:
While fiscal conservatism is usually defined as being about small government and lower taxes, those are merely policies that grow out of the fundamental axiom of fiscal conservatism. Fiscal conservatism is founded on the belief that wealth originates from the ideas of an individual who can compete in a free market and has the incentive of getting to keep most of the wealth generated by his or her creativity. Well, I ask you, who is more creative than LGBT people?
With our cool hair and fabulous floral arangements, why we are just one creative stereotype!
The LGBT population actually provides a model of how fiscally conservative social liberals and libertarians think government and society should work. That’s because the LGBT community is chock-full of entrepreneurs and also meets its needs through volunteer organizations and private charities because LGBTs can’t depend on the government, religions, or even their families for assistance. So LGBT folks are forced to be self-reliant, resourceful, and generous. Our charities and nonprofit organizations live or die on the basis of LGBTs having enough of their own money left over after taxes, living expenses, and savings to donate. While LGBTs create their own safety net and donate out of necessity, their approach still matches the model of fiscally conservative social liberals and libertarians that the social safety net should have as little government involvement as possible and be provided primarily through grassroots private charities.
That's right. Being thrown under the bus by, well, everyone, is an Anne Rand wet dream! And while our charities lived or die by donations, she conveniently ignores how many people lived or died in the plague years because government did fucking nothing to help. It turns out it took more than a cool fundraiser to develop a protease inhibitor. This model of death or bootstraps is flat-out evil, and as liberals we should all take the opportunity to point that any change we get.
In fact, it is hard to imagine a group of people more suited to an economic philosophy founded on individual liberty than LGBTs. That’s because employment discrimination forces us, in large numbers, into entrepreneurial careers, which is what makes us natural supporters of both fiscal conservatism and libertarianism.
No, it makes us natural advocates for anti-discrimination legislation. Which her party continues to block. The invisible hand continues to smack us down, because people would rather be bigots than to follow their best interest. I thought we already covered this ground in the 60s?
She goes on to break Conservatives into four different groups:
Um, to paraphrase:
Libertarians (they don't hate us, the just don't want us to have special rights).
Greedy Pigs (they don't hate use, they just have no use for us).
Then there's the other two groups:
The third and fourth groups on the right that the LGBT left needs to understand are inner-directed social conservatives and outer-directed social conservatives. Inner-directed social conservatives rely on their own consciences to make moral decisions. They respect and admire virtues such as devotion to a life partner and service to the community. They are wary of LGBT equality because they don’t know how it will affect the stability of society, the institution of marriage, their religion, and the strength of our military. However, inner-directed social conservatives can be won over by LGBTs who show them we too are devoted to our spouses, families, and community service.
In contrast, outer-directed social conservatives are the permanent and implacable foes of LGBT equality. They are immune to our stories of devotion and lead lives according to the dictates of their religious leaders. LGBT activists should shoo them out of government and back to their proper place in the realm of persuasion, where religions reside in America thanks to the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom.
i.e.
Group 3: Hates us but can be convinced.
Group 4: Hates us and will always hate us.
She forgets to acknowledge that, at the moment, this 4th group is driving the bus. And have been for as long as I've been alive. I'm not sure her group three actually exists in the first place. And I love the "LGBT leaders should shoo them out of government and back to their proper place..." as if LGBT leaders has any control over the evangelical right wing of the GOP.
Sigh.
As noted at the end of the article, " Cynthia Yockey is a former lifelong Democrat and liberal who became a fiscal conservative–social liberal and Republican in 2008." Good riddance, I think. And how can you be a "former lifelong" anything?
I don't know that The Advocate was thinking publishing this. The psychotic disconnect between the support she says exists, and the constitutional repercussions of us not reaching out to the Right, make my head hurt.
So, to sum up:
Republicans love us. We're so, like, creative. And we should vote Republican because they love us so much. And if we don't, they are going to pass a marriage amendment. Because they love us.