Progressive Dismiss History in Favor of Preferred Narratives

James Kirchick writes:

The role of [Frank] Kameny and other gay rights pioneers has been neglected by many historians, journalists, and cultural influencers, who prefer to locate the origins of the movement for gay equality in “a race riot against the police started by hustling transwomen of color.” They speak of the “privilege” supposedly enjoyed by Kameny and the other gay white men who dominated the pre-Stonewall gay rights movement, as if being a homosexual in mid-century America — hunted by the police, purged by the government, confined to mental institutions, and subjected to barbaric forms of medicalized torture — was a blessed way of life. That the movement’s intellectual roots are reformist and bourgeois does not suit these people’s ideological commitments or theory of history.


Gay Marriage Isn’t at Risk

In the the majority opinion, Justice Alito wrote:

“The exercise of the rights at issue in Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell does not destroy a “potential life,” but an abortion has that effect. … Unable to show concrete reliance on Roe and Casey themselves, the Solicitor General suggests that overruling those decisions would “threaten the Court’s precedents holding that the Due Process Clause protects other rights.” Brief for United States 26 (citing Obergefell, 576 U. S. 644; Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558; Griswold, 381 U. S. 479). That is not correct for reasons we have already discussed. As even the Casey plurality recognized, “[a]bortion is a unique act” because it terminates “life or potential life.” 505 U. S., at 852; see also Roe, 410 U. S., at 159 (abortion is “inherently different from marital intimacy,” “marriage,” or “procreation”). And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right.
Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

Justice Kavanaugh wrote in his concurring opinion:

“First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.”

Justice Thomas would like to overthrow Obergefell, but he stands alone.


Also, law professor and blogger Dale Carpenter writes:

“In a sense the Court is doing two things. It is saying there can be no constitutional right to take what the state regards as life or potential life, and the Court should never have second-guessed or overriden that governmental conclusion. And it is saying that even if abortion fits within a larger sphere of autonomy over one’s reproduction, the state’s interest in life or potential life is enough to justify regulation or outright prohibition.”

LGBTQIA+ Is All About Serving the Progressive Democrat Party

Virginia’s Gov. Glenn Youngkin hosted a Virginia pride reception, angering LGBTQ woke-progressive-Democrat groups who boycotted because he’s, you know, a Republican.

>>Last week, Youngkin also traveled to Virginia Beach to meet with the Log Cabin Republicans, a conservative LGBTQ group.
“The Democrat Party and the people on the left, the left-leaning organizations, they all lambaste Republicans for not embracing the gay community. And then when one does, they lambaste, and they lose their minds,” Casey Flores, president of the group’s new Richmond chapter, told WRC-TV.
Meanwhile, more liberal LGBTQ groups in Virginia issued press releases announcing that they would not attend the Pride month reception at the Virginia Capitol.<<

History, Real and Revised

In her New York Times review, Alexandra Jacobs complains, “This is overwhelmingly a gallery of the white male gaytriarchy, with lesbians and people of color mostly on the sidelines.”

Because gay (mostly white) men who were the primary targets of the purge of federal employees during that time don’t deserve to have their history told. Is that clear enough?

More. Rob Wolfe complains in the Washington Monthly that Kirchick is insufficiently intersectional. But in criticizing Kirchick’s views against making everything about the entire progressive agenda, he shows why Kirchick has gotten it right. Wolfe writes:

Kirchick has written a comprehensive and deeply humane work of history, but he doesn’t extend this question to the present day. His other writings suggest, unfortunately, that this may be because he lacks the same compassion for some of today’s marginalized groups. In a 2019 Atlantic article titled “The Struggle for Gay Rights Is Over,” Kirchick proclaimed that America is becoming a “post-gay country,” where same-sex marriage is legal, an “out” gay man can be a credible presidential candidate, and 70 percent of Americans say homosexuality should be accepted. With so many victories, Kirchick accuses present-day activists of “mission creep”—of pushing forward with largely irrelevant struggles, refusing to accept that they have already won. He writes, “For many of those whose political identities have been shaped by crusades against government discrimination and pervasive societal ignorance, victimhood is too essential an identity to be so easily discarded.”


Yes, It’s Pride Month

More. Photos from a “child friendly” drag show hosted at a Dallas gay bar. Does this look like a healthy experience for the kids? (The neon sign reads “It’s Not Gonna Lick Itself”).

More.A “family friendly” drag show?