Forget the Log Cabin Gay Republicans and their homophobic cousins on the far right. Depart from Gertrude Stein Democrats and their dependent friends on the far left. Instead of the left wingers or right wingers, consider a libertarian view, what Rush Limbaugh sarcastically called "up wingers."
Gays & Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL) represent just that. In doing so, they stand apart from the two traditional flanks. The mainline gay groups who see government as our mommy don't get it. Got a problem, call a politician. Somebody hurt your feelings -- go tell the police or some "equal" sort of commission. These left wingers don't include GLIL as a part of the rainbow. GLIL's blend of individual liberty with personal responsibility creates a shade that doesn't fit into their spectrum.
On the right, Log Cabin types just seem to want a place at the right wing table -- and even squishy moderate Bob Dole doesn't want to be seated next to them. Dole just gave them the boot when he returned their campaign contribution. You hear a lot of talk about smaller government coming from the right. Do they believe it? If Virginia governor George Allen honestly believes the Jeffersonian admonition for smaller government, he should be leading the charge to repeal Sodomy laws in that state.
How can libertarian approaches protect our community; a diverse people that have historically faced hostility? Our heritage of racism gives people vivid examples of the vicious impact of discrimination. Add that to today's perverted free market -- a marriage of big business and big government that concentrates power unjustly in the hands of special interests -- and a sense of victimization is not altogether unreasonable.
So now what? Massachusetts Governor William Weld told a meeting of the Human Rights Campaign Fund in Boston that they have to "find a bridge to the Gingrich revolution." Or else, he said, things will be worse off for gays and the whole country. Weld called for small government libertarianism. That's exactly what GLIL advocates. To see the benefits, we first have to separate intertwined government and private policies.
America's tragic record with racial civil rights was government policy. In county court houses, rest rooms were segregated on racial lines. On city busses African Americans were forced to the back. Jim Crow laws subverted economic opportunities for blacks. Chain gangs often served businesses who made corrupt deals with prison and law enforcement officials. And it was the military that segregated black and white under a guise of "unit cohesion." All this was government policy -- not private enterprise.
GLIL believes the best government is the one that governs least -- in all parts of our lives. One of the few positions held in common by these libertarians and the mainline gay rights movement is the desire to repeal Sodomy laws. It is not a proper role of government to rule private, consensual intimate behavior.
The lack of laws banning such behavior is not an endorsement. Otherwise one could ask why there are no laws against children lying to their parents. Surely the lack of that kind of law is not an endorsement for child liars. And comparing the voluntary behavior of adults with pedophiles who initiate force against children is not valid. It is that element of force that makes the issues unrelated.
In light of today's enforcement tactics, Sodomy laws violate a precious element within our Constitution. The equal protection clause is ignored when the only people who suffer persecution are same-sex violators. Read the laws. Heterosexuals make up most of the people violating these laws, but they don't get arrested or lose their children.
On the national policy front, Bill Clinton's "Don't Ask Don't Tell," head-in-the-sand policy against gays in the military is wrong in GLIL's eyes. Retaining people for whom they are, not how they perform in their jobs, goes against true capitalism. Barry Goldwater got to the core of libertarian philosophy. He said that it shouldn't matter if a soldier is straight, but if he can shoot straight. The best military requires objective qualifications, skills, and obedience to orders. And the Tailhook scandal proved that acts of individuals ruin unit cohesion, regardless of orientation.
But take note: the moral underpinning of why the military should not discriminate against gays is the same one that makes affirmative action quota laws wrong. If one accepts that qualifications and skills should be the basis for military service, laws forcing employers to hire people based on class violate that argument. You cannot have it both ways.
In a true free market, there are ways to deal with the immoral practice of discrimination against classes of people. There's the mass distribution of information and boycotts, of course. But there are even more effective tools.
Nobel economist Milton Friedman laid down a moral code for companies. He said that the management has a single obligation to stock holders: earning honest profits. When managers deal with anything short of how well employees do their jobs, they violate their fiscal responsibility to the share holders. In a real free market, this would allow share holders to sue for a correction in the policy and damages.
Beyond that legal remedy, people with talent and skill will beat small-minded firms in head-on competition. As employers are free to choose who they want working for them, employees have to see their own value. Workers have to have a sense of empowerment and self-worth. Take your talents away from a bad company and bring them elsewhere -- or better yet, start your own business.
All over the U.S. gays and lesbians prove this natural element of the free market. Like ethnic immigrants early in this century, many have naturally segregated in urban areas; providing our own sense of community and our own businesses. The gay gentrification of urban areas -- from Dupont Circle to West Hollywood -- shows the power of the free market in our own community.
On other issues, gays seeking a truly just society share more in common with Ralph Reed than Barney Frank. For instance, when one applies the tenet of equal protection for all, one can see why hate crime laws are a bad idea. To enforce laws that make acts of violence against gays worse than violent acts against somebody else only creates animosity. Whether the person hates you, is mad at a spouse, or steals your grandma's pension check shouldn't matter. An intentional and violent act against another human is enough reason for society to intervene swiftly and severely.
A real free-market offers us the best opportunity to pursue our own happiness. And it does so without stepping on the equal rights of other people to pursue their own happiness. The problem posed by the left and right wings is that they will step on the folks they oppose to get their way. A little more libertarianism from the left and the right will mean a more peaceful world for everybody.