Happy Independence Day, a time to celebrate liberty and freedom (from government injustice and tyranny).
Next year, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear and rule on one aspect of the odious, anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act—the provision that forbids the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and legal partnerships that are valid under state law. I’m hopeful this will topple, with libertarian-leaning Justice Kennedy joining the court’s liberals. I’m less convinced that Chief Justice Roberts will do the right thing, despite (or maybe because of) his support for government overreach in casting the deciding vote to uphold the Democrats’ liberty curtailing (and small business strangling, jobs crushing) health care “reform.”
Over at the Huffington Post, James Peron takes issue with Brendan O’Neill, former editor of Living Marxism, who argues that gay marriage is “a tool of the elite” used to disparage the working classes, to whom we should all look for correct political guidance. O’Neill writes:
gay marriage has become so central to modern political debate in America and Britain, despite there being almost no societal drive or urge behind it—because it lends itself brilliantly to expressions of a very elitist sensibility.
Counters Peron, “In the years that I’ve followed assaults on LGBT people, the attackers were almost universally from the class Marxists told me were my allies. Sorry, but I’m not going to get gay bashed for anyone’s revolution.” (Hat tip: Rick Sincere)
Finally, Deroy Murdock forwarded a link to his defense of Ronald Reagan, a fighter against totalitarian tyranny who has been a favorite target of the gay left’s wrath.
9 Comments for “Forward with the Liberty Revolution”
posted by Doug on
It truly pains me, Stephen, that you have to live under the injustice and tyranny imposed by our current government. Maybe you should just move to another less tyrannical country. Then we would both be happy.
posted by another steve on
So Doug, you’re saying “America, love it or leave it”? Did you have any inkling what a rightwing nostrum that is? Do you have any sense of history, or are you just a big blowhard?
posted by Doug on
No I am not saying ‘America, love it or leave it’. Miller has no specific criticism just typical over the top right wing rhetoric.
posted by Houndentenor on
What a load of crap. Not you, Stephen (well kind of LOL), but that idiot article from Huffington Post. Thanks for reminding me why I never go to that site. It’s just not worth anyone’s time. I don’t know who this moron is going on about Marxism but that’s a conversation and a point of view I NEVER hear, and I run in pretty liberal circles most of the time. It’s absurd. I’d have never read it had you not mentioned it because I don’t ever talk to or read or even follow on Twitter anyone who would take something like that seriously. Leave it to the right-wingers to go on and on about something an irrelevant far-left windbag had to say.
posted by Jorge on
Not sure I’m gonna read it, but I agree with both points.
I think gay marriage is an ivory tower issue and that its strongest proponents are out of touch with America.
And I think “the man on the street” represents the most dangerous group of people to gay people’s personal safety and self-respect on a day to day basis.
Finally, Deroy Murdock forwarded a link to his defense of Ronald Reagan
I’ve read convincing rebuttals of the accusation that Ronald Reagan had anti-gay animus in response to the AIDS epidemic.
I suppose this is one of them.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It seems to me, for what it is worth, that the O’Neill/Person conflap is mostly silly, O’Neill being a good example of an ideologue spouting nonsense.
I can’t speak to O’Neill’s Britain (where Marxism and class struggle may still be an issue, and where the upper-class “elite” may exist culturally, Corgi’s and all) , but I can speak to the United States.
In the United States, the pressure for marriage equality has came (and continues to come) from ordinary gay and lesbian couples who want to get married.
The so-called “LGBT leadership” resisted the pressure as long as it could, purporting to favor an “incremental process” through limited-rights domestic partnerships, and once that was accepted to marriage-equivalent civil unions, and once that was accepted, to marriage equality, similar to the approach Stephen has advocated on IGF over the years.
The “leadership” climbed onto the marriage equality train only after it was clear that there was no way that it could stop the train.
posted by craig on
American liberals something don’t realize the continuing pull of Marxism on British and European intellectuals (who continue to perform contortions to deny/explain the effects of actual Marxism in practice). In that sense, the O’Neill piece was an interesting reminder.
In the U.S., opposition to marriage equality is, in essence, driven by the religious right — which simply doesn’t exist in Britain and Europe. In America, we tend to think of classes along the lines of the poor, the middle class and the wealthy. Our factory workers (those working) are middle class. A very different kind of world view.
posted by Houndentenor on
This is true. But in America I don’t know of anyone who pays attention to that kind of thing. Perhaps a few near-retirement academics and aging ex-hippies. When I was living in Germany about 10 years ago, I was considered conservative by my German friends. Over here I’m considered a liberal. I think of myself as a moderate. But your point about European scholars and Marxism is well taken. I wasn’t aware it was still relevant since it’s been about 20 years now since I’ve attempted to slog through a scholarly article in French, Italian or German.
posted by TomJefferson3 on
Ok, much of this is dealing with gay history a wee bit before my time. So, I have to go off of what I read in history books and hear from other, older gays.
Some of the earliest proponents of gay rights were 19th century Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists and some anarchists. In libertarianism was originally a combination of socialism and anarchy. These early allies were not free of prejudice, or above using homosexuality as an accusation, but they did generally support removing the anti-gay criminal laws and they generally support sexual science.
Communism is not the same thing as socialism, although they often get linked up (by the left and right). Communists tended to be rather reactionary when it came to non-conforming gender roles and same-sex sexuality. Both the founders were very uncomfortable with the early gay rights movement and most Communist government tend to treat gays and transgender folk as criminals/dissidents.
Their were some notable exceptions. One British Communist did condemn the Soviet Union when Stalin jumped started the anti-gay purge. American Harry Hay had a important role in the gay rights movement early on, although the Communist party and the gay rights movement actually had not really want Hay to stick around.
Marxist responses to feminism/gay rights have, to some extent,changed. Communist Cuba has taken some good steps to deal with its homophobia and transphobia.
Now onto former President Reagan. Everything that I have read about him in terms of gay rights has generally been negative and rightly so.
Personally, Reagan probably did not care about gay rights or, for that matter, feminism one way or the other. He was not actually a terribly ‘religious’ man. But, he knew full very well that the religious right and its donors and voters cared a lot.
Throughout the 1980s, during his campaign and re-election campaign, he opposed gay rights legislation, he opposed efforts to legalizing homosexuality and was quite effective at making sure that the government was hostile to the gay ‘life-style’. Randy Shilits book on gays in the military seems to suggest that during the Reagan administration the ban on gays in the armed forces got
much harsher. This is not even getting into the AIDS pandemic.
Many people dropped the ball in the 1980s when it came to the pandemic. Disaster brings out the best and worst in people and, frankly, with Reagan and the New Right…the worst seems to have been the order of the day.
Granted, Democratic party presidential candidates in the 1980s were generally better, but gay rights was something associated with and only given much support from the more progressive Democrats, who would be seen as a liability after the presidential election of 1980, 1984 and 1988.