A Two-Party Strategy, More Than Ever.

I guess I wasn't really aware of this until I read it in the June 22 (Pride) issue of The Advocate. Writes author and Air America (that's lefty radio) host Laura Flanders:

At every level the [Democratic] party needs a push: of the 14 legislative bodies in seven states that have passed anti-gay marriage amendments (which are subject to voter approval), six were Democrat-dominated; two state legislatures had both houses controlled by Democrats.

Yes, on gay matters, the GOP is worse. But the Democrats will do as little as they feel they can get away with, and those who urge gay voters to withdraw from the GOP are ensuring that the Democrats will become even more lethargic.

I've said this before, but I like it, so I'm saying it again: If a town has just two supermarkets, it doesn't do much good to proclaim you'll never, ever use supermarket A (and anybody who does should be cursed) and then complain about the lousy service you're receiving at supermarket B.

Gay Panic in Virginia.

Our own Jonathan Rauch, a Virginia resident, takes aim at Virginia's law set take effect July 1 that will nullify all "contracts or arrangements" between two members of the same sex that seek to bestow marriage-like rights. In his Sunday op-ed in the Washington Post, he also reminds us that Virginia is the only state to forbid private companies, unless self-insured, from extending health insurance coverage to employees' domestic partners.

Writes Rauch of the new statute:

When Rhea County, Tenn., tried to ban gays from living there, it became a national laughingstock and hastily backed down. Obstructing gay couples' private contracts is no less vindictive and abusive, and it deserves the same nationwide opprobrium...

If Virginia's attack on basic legal equality does not offend and embarrass conservatives, what anti-gay measure possibly could? And if this law is not snuffed out, what might be next?

Two good questions.

Anything He Did Would Have Been Wrong.

The Washington Post takes a look at the gay community's response to Reagan's death. Among those quoted, activist-author Larry Kramer complains:

Not once in that speech -- not once in his presidency -- did [Reagan] ever say gays and AIDS and crisis in the same sentence.

Forgive me, but if Reagan had given a speech linking "gays" and "AIDS" and "crisis," I can just imagine the outcry from activists damning him for inciting an anti-gay panic. Not a shred of doubt about it.

More Recent Postings

6/06/04 - 6/12/04

More from Deroy.

In a new column posted at NRO (National Review Online) titled "The Homophobe Myth: The Facts About Ronald Reagan," Deroy Murdock responds to critics of his earlier piece, "The Truth About Reagan and AIDS" (posted at right). And note, National Review is one of the preeminent conservative home bases -- arguing persuasively here that Reagan was not a homophobe is all to the good. Just what does the left think it's accomplishing by screeching that this widely beloved hero-president (and, yes, conservative icon) was anti-gay? And doing so with distorted history (e.g., the claim Reagan never mentioned AIDS until 1987)?

Deroy, by the way, does clear up a misattribution of a Reagan statement about AIDS, which was not in the State of the Union address, as he originally stated, but in ancillary material given to Congress. We've posted a correction on his earlier article to clarify the matter, which is also noted in a letter in our mailbag.

From Overseas.

New Zealand's Institute for Liberal Values [which seems to be a vehemently anti-left, pro civil liberties group] posts this piece, "Was Reagan a Bigot"? Jim Peon writes:

There are times that the dominant Left in the gay community really irritate me. And right now is one of them. Ronald Reagan has just died. Many Americans, myself included, still have some fond feelings for the man.
But some of the more radical elements within the gay community refuse to see any good in Reagan just as they refuse to see any problems with their anointed candidates.

It's a small world, after all.

The “A” Word.

Because the canard about Reagan not mentioning AIDS before 1987 is spreading, here's an excerpt from a press conference transcript, from the NY Times, Sept. 18, 1985:

Q: Would you support a massive Government research program against AIDS like the one that President Nixon launched against cancer?

Reagan: I have been supporting it for more than four years now. It's been one of the top priorities with us, and over the last four years and including what we have in the budget for '86 it will amount to over a half a billion dollars that we have provided for research on AIDS, in addition to what I'm sure other medical groups are doing.

And we have $100 billion, or $100 million in the budget this year; it'll be $126 million next year. So this is a top priority with us. Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this, and the need to find an answer.

Reagan and the 'Briggs Initiative.'

On another gay-related issue, here's a good discussion of Reagan's opposition to a statewide ballot initiative that would have banned gays and lesbians from teaching in California's public schools. Writes columnist John Nichols:

it was quite a remarkable moment when Ronald Reagan, who had served two terms as governor of California and was preparing to mount a campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 1980, emerged as an outspoken foe of the Briggs Initiative. Convinced by activists David Mixner and Peter Scott that the initiative represented an unwarranted threat to free speech rights and individual liberties, Reagan declared that the initiative "is not needed to protect our children -- we have the legal protection now." ...

Reagan's forceful opposition to the Briggs Initiative helped to doom it.

Initially, one poll had shown that Californians backed the anti-gay initiative by a margin of 61 percent to 31 percent.

The Haters.

A commentary by author and ACT-UP founder Larry Kramer, slated for the July 6th issue of The Advocate (on sale June 22), is making the rounds of the 'net. It's headlined "Adolf Reagan," and the Hitler/Reagan comparisons aren't limited to the title. Kramer begins his polemic:

Our murderer is dead. The man who murdered more gay people than anyone in the entire history of the world, is dead. More people than Hitler even.

Andrew Sullivan has a well-reasoned response on his andrewsullivan.com blog to this kind of anti-Reagan hyperbole. Sullivan writes that once the epidemic became evident:

Many people most at risk were aware -- mostly too late, alas -- that unprotected sex had become fatal in the late 1970s and still was. You can read Randy Shilts' bracing And The Band Played On to see how some of the resistance to those warnings came from within the gay movement itself. In the polarized atmosphere of the beleaguered gay ghettoes of the 1980s, one also wonders what an instruction from Ronald Reagan to wear condoms would have accomplished.

As for research, we didn't even know what HIV was until 1983. Nevertheless, the Reagan presidency spent some $5.7 billion on HIV in its two terms -- not peanuts. The resources increased by 450 percent in 1983, 134 percent in 1984, 99 percent the next year and 148 percent the year after.

And than there's the oft-repeated charge, or variants thereof, that Reagan never mentioned AIDS until a 1987 speech. For instance, writes Matt Foreman, head of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force:

AIDS was first reported in 1981, but President Reagan could not bring himself to address the plague until March 31, 1987, at which time there were 60,000 reported cases of full-blown AIDS and 30,000 deaths.

But the New York Times, in an article dated September 18, 1985 and titled "Reagan Defends Financing for AIDS," reported:

President Reagan, who has been accused of public indifference to the AIDS crisis by groups representing victims of the deadly disease, said last night that his Administration was already making a "vital contribution" to research on the disease....

Mr. Reagan said that he had been supporting research into AIDS, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, for the last four years and that the effort was a "top priority" for the Administration.

No, Reagan didn't poison the drinking water or otherwise engage in "murder." Could and should he have done more to let people know his government cared about their plight? Yes. Did his efforts to embrace the religious right as part of the GOP coalition give power and prestige to some very bad people? Yes. But that's far from what some are accusing him of. It seems the extremes of both the left and the right are united in their need to express a daily dose of hate and vitriol.

Talking Marriage to Conservatives.

John Phillips informs us of an amusing column he wrote for the conservative site Men's News Daily, arguing why conservatives should support gay marriage. As he puts it:

I've always believed that when it comes to protecting liberty the following rules apply: (1) individuals know better than politicians, (2) the states know better than the feds and (3) those who think that the Constitution should grow like Topsy are always wrong. Unfortunately, when it comes to gay marriage many conservatives suddenly develop amnesia. It's the only issue that I know of that can make committed Republicans get down on their hands and knees and beg for government regulation.

If conservatives are willing to give Big Brother the power to tell you who you can or can't marry, why get upset when liberals want to dictate what your salary should be, what you should pay for rent or whether or not you really need your sports utility vehicle? You're either for big, intrusive government or you aren't.

The column sparked quite a bit of debate on another conservative site, freerepublic.com. Remarks Phillips in his note to us, "For the first time in my life I was accused of being an anarchist, socialist and atheist! Anyway, I just thought that you guys would be amused by this." You may be, too.

So Much Noise, So Little Support.

From a survey of evangelical Christians reported on the website Christianity Today:

52% of evangelical Christians would rather prohibit gay marriage through state laws than through a constitutional amendment.

48% of evangelicals say a candidate's support for gay marriage would disqualify him from getting their votes.

That is, a majority of evangelicals are opposed to the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, and less than a majority would make gay marriage a litmus test issue. The prospects for the FMA look weaker all the time.

Mail Call

There are some new letters in our mailbag, including comments on anti-Americanism and a defense of Mississippi. Check 'em out.

When Worldviews Collide.

From the Log Cabin Republicans:

President Reagan's inspirational vision for America relied on optimism, hope and an enduring faith in individual freedom.... He succeeded by bringing America together -- not trying to divide it for political gain.

From the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force:

The Reagan administration's policies on AIDS and anything gay-related resulted -- and continue to result -- in despair and death.

More Recent Postings

5/30/04 - 6/06/04

Expanding Rights – The American Way.

In this L.A. Times op-ed. "Marriage Can Be Expanded," the mathematician father of a lesbian daughter writes:

Each time the right to vote was extended, those who already had that right were indeed threatened. They could still vote, but their vote had less impact. But permitting two people of the same sex to form a union graced by the word "marriage" does not jeopardize those already married. It does not dilute the strength of an existing marriage...

If we were able to accept the ever-broadening meaning of the vote, which at each stage did threaten the existing order, we can surely absorb the extension of marriage, which will only strengthen the bonds that hold our society together.

An interesting analogy, which reflects how in free societies the nature of rights is to expand.