Here is actress Kelly McGillis, who came out as a lesbian several months ago, from a recent interview — she is about the only lesbian or gay person besides me who is pointing out that the current issue regarding minority rights is that gays and lesbians comprise the ONLY minority that is not equal:
Discrimination against lesbians and gays is not simply a matter of private property rights, it is required by federal law and the laws and/or constitutions of the majority of states.
The acceptance of discrimination against lesbians and gays as a minority by everyone means that everyone, everyone, EVERYONE!!!! missed the REAL story yesterday regarding MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s interview with Rand Paul and her question on whether he would support the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Her intent apparently was to use the almost-universal incomprehension of libertarianism to destroy Rand Paul and revive the flagging power of the race card. And certainly Maddow was successful in causing an explosion of comment on the Left and Right in both the blogosphere and mainstream media. On the Left and Right, the commentary had one thing in common that is greatly to their credit: everyone denounced racism, and the argument was about how it is be eliminated or marginalized. However, they ALL also missed the most glaring disconnect in the story: the woman carrying the Left’s water on this issue is a lesbian and she herself has no federal civil rights — absolutely NO ONE sent the argument back to the Left to have them explain how they are going to provide federal equality for lesbians and gays in the remaining months that they will hold the majority in the Congress as well as the presidency.
If we are going to talk about how discrimination should be defeated, we should be having it about how to provide full equality at the federal and state levels for lesbians and gays.
The only reasons being offered to justify the laws that deny lesbians and gays equality boil down to religiously based assertions that we are somehow intrinsically evil and to the claim that only people who make babies deserve equality. Both of these arguments should be anathema to conservatives because they violate both the separation of church and state AND the principle of individual liberty.
I am astonished that the Right is still taking the race bait for the Alinsky-prescribed tactic quoted recently by John Hawkins at Right Wing News in a post featuring the list of Alinsky’s rules for radicals and quotes from Alinsky’s book (boldfacing mine):
The organizer dedicated to changing the life of a particular community must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. — P.116-117
So — the Left feeds pie-in-the-sky to the only minority in the U.S. that not only does NOT have equality, but is burdened with laws to enforce its inequality. Meanwhile, it uses a lesbian, Rachel Maddow, a member of that unequal minority, to rub raw the resentments of black people, who, as a minority, have more laws protecting their equality than any other minority.
Here’s an idea — why don’t we have Rachel Maddow bring Rand Paul back for a discussion of how or whether the libertarian approach to obtaining equality would work in 2010 for lesbians and gays. Get the Left to have THAT discussion — or explain why it still expects lesbians and gays to walk quietly to the back of its bus.
I particularly enjoyed the following posts on Rachel Maddow vs. Rand Paul:
Kathy Shaidle, who has a video clip of Barry Goldwater explaining why he voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act — she shellacks Ann Althouse over property rights and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Dafydd Ab Hugh at Hot Air on “The Lizards Defend that Blooming Idiot, Rand Paul“:
But just because one shallow thinker of today [Rand Paul] was unable to defend the liberty position doesn’t make indefensible a principle famously argued by Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election campaign… no matter what Hugh Hewitt says.
It’s hard to nail down exactly what Paul’s position actually is; I think it’s the same as Goldwater’s: Where state or federal policy either directly discriminates on the basis of race or else mandates private racial discrimination, it is absolutely appropriate to pass a federal law overturning such “institutional racialism;” however, such a law should not and constitutionally cannot reach beyond that point to purely private and voluntary racial discrimination, which (alas) the final version of the Act did.
That’s why Goldwater voted against it after having supported earlier versions that did not outlaw private, volunatry discrimination; and fair warning, that is my objection to the Act, as well.
Stacy McCain at The Other McCain — if you want to know the history of a political issue, he’s the man. Stacy embeds the video of the interview and links Dave Weigel, who has the transcript and additional discussion. I helped lead the counter-attack last year when Stacy was being falsely accused of racism. I thought his behavior under this assault personified class, decency and intelligence. So Stacy’s advice on how to respond to the race card is deeply informed by experience:
Turn the enemy’s attack against him — rhetorical ju-jitsu. A static defense, a stubborn insistence that you are right, is not nearly so effective as the counterattack that shows your opponent is wrong.
Rachel Maddow and the Left in general are attempting to limit the scope of debate and define the terms to their own advantage, so that they get to decide who is or is not a “racist.” Americans are sick and tired of seeing accusations of racism tossed around willy-nilly like this, and if Rand Paul would confront this tactic head-on — exposing as invalid the rhetorical gamesmanship involved — he would emerge fromn the fight as a hero to many Kentucky voters, especially independents and conservative-leaning Democrats.
Rather than whining or acting defensively indignant (“How dare you call me a racist!”), focus the counterattack on the Left’s dishonest tactic of defining “racism” in a way that shuts off meaningful political debate and categorically stigmatizes conservatives.
Prof. William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection explains his own position and concludes with the following:
But I do also think there is enormous hypocrisy here, because it is Democrats who perpetuate institutionalized race-based discrimination through affirmative action programs which include the color of one’s skin as part of the decision-making process. This may be legal in certain circumstances, and may even be desirable to remedy historical imbalances, but it is discrimination nonetheless.
The irony is that it is Republicans and Tea Partiers who hold most true to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of a nation where people were not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
But you wouldn’t know it to read Memeorandum yesterday.