First published in the Boston Globe Magazine, August 5, 2007
"I can't date someone with a different belief system" is what he told me. I expected this answer from the guy I had been casually seeing. From early on, I suspected that our differing political bents - his liberal, mine more conservative - would ultimately cause a split. Once, we had a heated argument when I said offhandedly that people who could not afford to care for children should not have them (not a policy prescription, just a profession of personal ethics). After that, I tried to avoid political discussions altogether. So his answer did not come as much of a surprise when, a few weeks after we broke up, I asked him for his reasons. His beliefs euphemism didn't render the blow any softer: We're both Jewish.
So much for dating a proud, progressive, and ostensibly tolerant liberal. But with him, as with other liberals I know, tolerance does not always extend to appreciating someone else's differing political views. Now living in Cambridge and having grown up in the suburbs of Boston and gone to school at Yale, I've been surrounded by liberals for nearly all of my life. Most would be astonished to hear that they're the most intolerant people I've ever met. After all, I, the supposedly closed-minded conservative, never considered this guy's liberal politics anathema to the point of wanting to call off our relationship. A Mary Matalin-James Carville pairing (she the Republican adviser to Dick Cheney, he the Democratic strategist who helped Bill Clinton get elected) ours would not be.
As a gay recovering leftist - to my eternal shame, I canvassed for Ralph Nader in high school - I have grown accustomed to having difficulties in the dating world. At Yale, most people knew me as "the gay conservative" for a column I wrote in the school paper, and my notoriety - not the source of sexy fascination that I might have hoped it to be - certainly did not help my dating prospects. My reputation preceded me. Once, at a party, a gay freshman who had only been on campus for a few days was introduced to me and said, "Oh, you're that [expletive] conservative." On Facebook.com - where people of my generation self-importantly advertise themselves to the world - I selected "Libertarian" to describe my "political views." I hate using labels and am hardly a doctrinaire free-marketeer, but I generally believe that government makes a mess of things and that society is better off when the state only does what's absolutely necessary.
Most gay people are liberal, and this is somewhat understandable; the left has embraced gay rights as a part of its political agenda, whereas the right, with some important exceptions, has not. But for many gays, liberalism is just as much a visceral, reactionary tendency as it is a positive affirmation of political belief. Many gays I know - especially those from red states - blame conservatism writ large as the villain that repressed them for so many years. Thus, their homosexuality dictates their political views on everything. For these gays, it is just as much a part of the "coming out" process to be a loud liberal as a proud homosexual.
But there's nothing about my homosexuality that dictates a belief about raising the minimum wage, withdrawing immediately from Iraq, and backing teachers' unions: all liberal causes that I strongly oppose. Yet there's a common, unattractive feature that many conservative gay men share: a serious chip on their shoulder. Being part of a community that is so intolerant of their views, gay conservatives can be embittered, patronizing, and castigatory of their gay brothers. It's not a particularly attractive attitude. Perhaps it's for this reason that I have not started cruising Log Cabin Republican meetings for dates.
Luckily, I am now dating someone who, though more liberal than I, appreciates my political independence. Let's just hope it lasts through this long campaign season.
{ 71 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
James, as a Log Cabin member since 1987, I have never known them to be “embittered, patronizing, and castigatory of their gay brothers” Quite the opposite. While the gay left lectures endlessly on diversity, LCR has a type of diversity that the group-think, identity-politics left has never tolerated: a diversity of ideology!
LCR is comprised of Gays and Lesbians with a broad political spectum of beliefs. We have Liberal Country Club Republicans, populist Cloth-Coat Republicans, Neo-Cons, Paleo-Cons and small “L” Libertarians. Everyone is welcome and debate and persuasion is encouraged! You seem too inteligent a man to fall into the “Progressive” trap of painting all adversaries with a derogatory and broad brush. See you at a chapter meeting!
Right now I’m dating a colombian, he’s not skinny enough but I’m gonna give him a chance because he has a nice personality. That doesn’t mean I have to settle for him just because no one else answered my ad on craiglist. I’ll give him a chance, but if it doesn’t work out, I just won’t date for a while. No big loss.
So what’s the difference between this and someone saying, oh, something like:
“Right now I’m dating a Republican, he’s not liberal enough but I’m gonna give him a chance because he has a nice face. That doesn’t mean I have to settle for him just because no one else answered my ad on craiglist. I’ll give him a chance, but if it doesn’t work out, I just won’t date for a while. No big loss.”
The difference Brian is that a Republican might not even get a chance.
Do a test, set up an account on gay.com with gayrepublican as a screen-name. Then set up another account with gary69. I bet you already know which one is gonna get more hits.
The difference Brian is that a Republican might not even get a chance.
Life isn’t fair.
Do a test, set up an account on gay.com with gayrepublican as a screen-name. Then set up another account with gary69. I bet you already know which one is gonna get more hits.
I suppose, if you believe one has a “right to one night stands,” that would be a disturbing thing. I happen not to believe in such a “right.”
“Life isn’t fair.”
—Exactly! So why call the “Who’ll Date a Homocon” writer a whiner? He has a point. Good looking or not, in the gay community being a republican is a disadvantage.
“I suppose, if you believe one has a “right to one night stands,” that would be a disturbing thing. I happen not to believe in such a “right.”"
—Gay.com isn’t all about one night stands, and I know people who have fallen in love after a one-night stand. Would you buy a car without taking it for a test drive? I think not.
Back when I went to college, the gays, the obvious fags, got beat up by their friends from Chi Psi. I guess the reason that has all changed is because of the LCR.
Uh, gee! Why do gay Republicans have trouble getting dates? Maybe it’s because they support a party filled with self-loathing closet cases like Jeff Guckert and Ken Mehlman who push homophobia to win elections. It isn’t hard to figure out.
You chose to be a Republican. Stop whining and take some personal responsibility for your actions.
Thanks to Joe in SF! I was just about to point out that, despite Brian Miller’s “And whenever anyone demands I change who I am ‘for them,’”, being Republican or “conservative” is a lifestyle choice. It’s not something you’re born with. You can’t tell that someone is conservative by looking at them. Yet these whiners are trying to ride on the coattails of real minorities by pretending that they’re being discriminated against. As Joe wrote, take responsibility for your actions and your beliefs.
Someone who thinks of Democrats generally as “liberals” isn’t just embracing a deviant lifestyle choice, however. He’s seriously delusional. I can deal with people with different politics — just about everyone has different politics than mine anyway. But I’m not interested in playing nursemaid to the demented.
There are quite a few comments from “progressive” gays here saying the same thing: “Stop whining!”
That’s merely code for, “You deserve our wrath” and proving the point: leftist gays are viciously intolerant. This is an indictment of not only their rotten personalities but also of their mendaciously evil ideology. “Progressives” are the ones claiming to abhor hatred, violence, intolerance, and discrimination, and it’s all a farce. They embrace hatred, excuse violence, practice intolerance, and love discrimination.
(Wait for it: “Boo hoo! You deserve it!”)
Am i the only one here that sees things this way:
Responding (or not) to someone’s physical attributes is something that we can’t really help; we like what we like for inexplicable reasons.
Call it shallow.
But don’t many of us, gay or straight, often equate one’s political views, ergo affiliation, with one’s character / morals / ethics?
Probably a bit more important than someone’s bald spot or few extra pounds.
Why should anyone be so horrified that many of us don’t want to embark on a personal relationship with another person we might find morally repulsive? Right, Middle or Left?
While i respect anyone’s right to their opinion, i won’t necessarily respect the content of it. To me, it speaks to the the person’s values.
Trying to compare rejection based upon one’s political differences to something as facile as “Sorry, no fatties” is a bit of a stretch.
P.S.-
I’ve rejected / been rejected based upon political views before, and i’m fine with that. However, i’ve never heard the ultimatum of “change your beliefs or we’re through!”
Why complain about those whackjobs? You dodged a bullet, now run!
Maybe it’s because they support a party filled with self-loathing closet cases like Jeff Guckert and Ken Mehlman who push homophobia to win elections. It isn’t hard to figure out.
That’s very interesting, Joe in SF.
After all, you and your fellow gay liberals and Democrats endorse and support FMA supporters, state constitutional amendment supporters, panderers to the religious right, and people who fire gays whose partners criticize the Democrat Party.
Heck, you and your fellow gay liberals and Democrats claimed that a candidate who proudly stated he had the “same position” as Republicans was “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Moreover, you haven’t said word one about the gay staffers for these candidates and their help on these campaigns, as well as their demanding that gay people donate millions of dollars to support them.
So that begs the question: is it homophobia you dislike, or is it just that “homophobia” to you is solely dependent on political affiliation?
“Why should anyone be so horrified that many of us don’t want to embark on a personal relationship with another person we might find morally repulsive? Right, Middle or Left?”
—I woud not be horrified, but it surprises me that to you politics matter more than looks.
To me, looks matter more than politics.
“conservative” is a lifestyle choice. It’s not something you’re born with.
I assume this is tongue-in-cheek, but I don’t necessarily believe that one’s political leanings are any more a “choice” than what flavor of ice cream he likes, or what religion he may practice.
It’s something developed over time, like one’s style or accent, and a demand from someone to change it “or else” is exceedingly boorish, regardless of the political beliefs of the individual in question and the individual demanding the change.
Judging from a lot of the responses, all the conservatives whining about hateful judgmental liberals would probably reject a liberal, and lots of “progressive open-minded liberals” seem awfully closed-minded on the issue. The devil on my right shoulder says you deserve each other!
Trying to compare rejection based upon one’s political differences to something as facile as “Sorry, no fatties” is a bit of a stretch.
Not really — the “logic” is about the same. The idea is that the individual in question has “chosen” his politics (or the diet/exercise leading to being “fat”) and thus is undesirable as a result of his own actions.
Now, I’m not saying you should date someone with whom you are incompatible — but if I had a dime for every “progressive open-minded liberal” I know who rejected dates on rather shallow bases, I’d be able to buy a high-end condo in San Francisco free and clear.
Now, it’s the same on the right wing side (and you do have issues of self-loathing on that side that are severe by most others’ standards) — but I really see this as two sides of the same coin. Y’all spend so much time brainlessly demonizing each other’s character — rather than thoughtful analysis of policy — and you hold your politics as some moral badge of superiority, rather than some beliefs you developed over time based on analysis. That means that it’s going to be a dogmatic slog through that part of your life. . . as drama-filled as my Jewish mom’s marriage to my Catholic dad.
I’ll admit it. I won’t date a Republican. This is not because I can’t stand their views on the minimum wage, judicial appointments, or this-or-that issue. No, the reason I only date other liberals is because you have to question the self-esteem of a gay man who supports a party which demonizes him to win elections. I’m sorry, but agreeing with Larry Craig and Mark Foley on welfare reform is insignificant when they won’t admit your own basic dignity.
North Dallas, you can’t seriously be implying that liberals are no better than conservatives when it comes to the equality of gay people? For each of your isolated anecdotes of Democratic ignorance, we’ve got a bushel of Republican! Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
No, the reason I only date other liberals is because you have to question the self-esteem of a gay man who supports a party which demonizes him to win elections.
Of course, when Mr. Lewis’s OWN party, as was shown in clear examples, “demonizes him to win elections”, his response is to — surprise! — blame Republicans.
For each of your isolated anecdotes of Democratic ignorance, we’ve got a bushel of Republican!
Perhaps it’s because Mr. Lewis fears, not a lack of self-esteem in OTHER men, but men who will confront him with his own lack of it, as manifested by his spin and excuses-making for homophobia in his own party.
North Dallas, you can’t seriously be implying that liberals are no better than conservatives when it comes to the equality of gay people?
Actually, they’re worse.
Conservatives make their feelings clear. Liberals, as Kerry and Dean showed, lie to gay people, take their money, then pander.
I’ll gladly take someone who is homophobic to my face over someone who lies to me, takes my money, and then is homophobic anyway.
Perhaps, Mr. Lewis, if you had a better sense of self-worth, you could confront homophobic Democrats directly, instead of spinning and making excuses for them.
But then again, they might not pretend to like you any more, and that could be devastating.
Only a gay republican could say: “the left has embraced gay rights as a part of its political agenda, whereas the right, with some important exceptions, has not” One can drive a buick skylark thru the gap between a hateful national demonization campaign and “not embracing” … I suppose you could say “if I spit on you, I’m not embracing you”. Just a nitpick. Oh and where are those important exeptions?
“you have to question the self-esteem of a gay man who supports a party which demonizes him to win elections.”
My self-esteem is very high, thank you very much. And I tell you this.
To the republicans, I’m a conservative who happens to be gay.
But to the democrats, I’m a confused queer. That’s what I despise about straight liberals, they think all queers are poor victims that need to kiss their asses to get a little tolerance. Well, they can take their tolerance and shove it up their asses. I don’t need it.
I think this is funny that both sides are going on and on about how the other is evil, selfish, etc.
I have a friend who is a gay conservative who would go on and on about liberals being awful people. Until I decided to remind him that both his partner and myself are liberals. He used to say “you are different.” But I decided to always remind him whenever he went off on liberals. Eventually he stopped having those rants in front of us.
I was going to leave it alone but this particular quote from North Dallas Thirty’s research I just had to say something about :
“The people who give the least are the young, especially young liberals. Brooks writes that “young liberals?perhaps the most vocally dissatisfied political constituency in America today?are one of the least generous demographic groups out there. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood.”
A) Young people aren’t known for having much of a disposable income that allows for charity.
B) Liberals tend to be artists, singers, actors, painters — you know: poor.
C) The vague mention of “organizations” is well…too vague. What organizations? The Rotary Club? Amnesty International? So if all of the local organizations are right wing or conservative, I’m supposed to join them anyway so I can help the stats on some survey?
D) One third less likely to give blood. I think it’s funny that this quote was targeted at gays. Shame on you gay people for not giving more blood! North Dallas, gay men are strictly forbidden to give blood. If you’re a man and you’ve had sexual contact with any man from 1977 to the present, you can’t give blood. Period. They don’t have exceptions to this rule. You can be single, celibate, and test negative for years and they don’t care. That’s not the only thing that will keep you from giving blood, by the way.
There are quite a few comments from “progressive” gays here saying the same thing: “Stop whining!”
That’s merely code for, “You deserve our wrath” and proving the point: leftist gays are viciously intolerant. This is an indictment of not only their rotten personalities but also of their mendaciously evil ideology. “Progressives” are the ones claiming to abhor hatred, violence, intolerance, and discrimination, and it’s all a farce. They embrace hatred, excuse violence, practice intolerance, and love discrimination.
What a whiner. First off, all’s fair in dating. If someone doesn’t turn you on, so be it. Second, Kirchik only gave his side of the story. Who knows what the other guy might have to say? Third, this idea that Democrats set themselves up as paragons of anything is pure bullshit.
Frankly, when it comes to politics, if I were single all that I’d ask for would be mutual respect, an I.Q. greater than a house plant, and a sense of humor. But you’d want that on everything else, too.
Could it be that Kirchuk is a whining Freeper nerd and the other guy was desperately hoping to talk about something that was interesting to him? Nah. Couldn’t be.
And what’s this with a “conservative” putting his complaint in the Boston Globe, anyway? Hey Kirchuk, where else did you peddle that self-pitying piece o’crap? What did the Boston Herald tell you? I’m dyin’ to know.
← Previous Comments