This morning this blog experienced technical difficulties and when it was restored came back missing my posts from Aug. 11 to Sept. 16. These include my posts on Marcus Bachmann and my op-ed for The Advocate on why gay equality will come from the Right. I have been able to save the posts,
but not the comments and the comments (on 9/25/11), from Google’s cache. (If anyone has suggestions on how to get the comments back, I would love to have them.) I’m lucky to have as much of the blog restored as I do because my web host tells me it’s had problems this week.
Although many of the comments at The Advocate about my op-ed were pretty toxic, I don’t think my blog was attacked over my op-ed.
Here’s the text of my post about my op-ed as rescued from Google’s cache:
I wasn’t expecting my op-ed for The Advocate on why gay equality will come from the Right to be published until October but just discovered from a Google alert that it is now online. Judging from the stats on referring URLs in my Sitemeter, not many Advocate readers have visited to learn more about how this could be so. I do find that conservatives are more intellectually curious about the people who disagree with them, but then diversity on the Right is a diversity of ideas rather than identity groups who must all toe the same line. But I will point out to the Right that the unwillingness of lesbians and gays on the Left to dialog too often comes from the bitter experience of being rejected by their own families for being gay. Betrayals of that magnitude do not foster trust. And it is very difficult from the Left to distinguish among all the different ideologies on the Right. This is especially so since social conservatism is antithetical to liberty, religious freedom and fiscal conservatism — as well as gay equality — because it is really animated by the desire of religions to be the sole possessors of
the one ring the coercive powers of government.
What is bizarre about lesbians and gays not understanding the Right is that no other group in the United States embodies the values of fiscal conservatives more than the lesbian and gay community. This is because we know we cannot rely on the government, our own families or our religion for support or protection. So lesbians and gays in large numbers must be entrepreneurs, self-reliant and resourceful. We also must set up and fund our own non-profits and charities. In contrast, one of the big objections social conservatives have to gay equality that is antithetical to fiscal conservatism is that their churches will no longer be able to get rivers of cash from the government for their evangelical enterprises, such as adoption agencies, which ought not to be receiving any government money, unless they agree to treat gays equally. (Note to progressives/liberals/Leftists: fiscal conservatism is opposed to big government and favors lower taxes, in order for individuals to retain the liberties that go with getting to keep most of the money they earn, so it is not consistent with fiscal conservative values to take money from people by force — which is how fiscal conservatives view taxes — and redistribute it for any purposes that the private sector and free enterprise can handle. This would include both religious adoption agencies and Planned Parenthood, neither one of which should be getting a penny of taxpayers’ money.)
I would appreciate my dear gentle readers checking out my piece and commenting at The Advocate. And, if it’s convenient, please leave a copy of your comment here.
Update, 9/16/11, Friday: The comments at The Advocate indicate a great deal of disbelief that there is a place for lesbians and gays in the big tent of conservatism (to put it mildly). What better way to prove them wrong than to donate to A Conservative Lesbian?
Update, 9/16/11, Friday: Thank you, Roger Simon, for linking both this post and my op-ed at The Advocate at the PJ Tatler. Welcome, Pajamas Media readers!
Update, 9/26/11, Sunday: Google’s cache of the original post along with the comments turned up today. The following are the cached comments:
Peter W. Davis, 9/16/11, 1:22 am:
Cyn, I’m one of those who do not object, in principle, to gay marriage or LBGTs in the military but I remain concerned about how well it will work. Still I will fight, as I have fought, unprovoked violence against everyone. When I got out of the service and joined up with my department one of the problems we had was gay men getting robbed and sometimes beaten in outdoor um, meeting places. Back then many of the victims would not even report the crimes, especially since so many of these victims were married. So many still are and I do not understand that one fully. I’m not sure I really want to but that’s another story.
Here’s my question: how much of this rejection from the family is still going on? Okay, I undertand the disappointment if an only child comes out and the parents realise that there will be no (old fashioned) grandchildren. Still, I suspect that far more parents would be like Dick Cheney.Seriously, aren’t the Cheneys more the norm these days?
Cynthia Yockey, 9/16/11, 9:32 am, in reply to Peter W. Davis:
Sadly, it looks to me like family rejection is still common. Social conservatives, both Right and Left, whose religions have told them that homosexuality is a choice are especially willing to throw away their lesbian and gay children, even to the point of putting dependent teens out on the street with reckless disregard of whether that will lead to their own child’s death. For example, I can’t find any conservative criticism of Alan Keyes and Randall Terry for tossing out their gay children when they were teens.
Also, it actually took the Cheneys awhile to get to where they are now — I once saw Lynn Cheney being interviewed on TV denying that her daughter, Mary, is a lesbian, even though Mary had been openly lesbian and a public figure for years. However, the Cheneys do deserve credit for being much more supportive of their lesbian daughter than Cher has been of her lesbian daughter who is now her transgender son. (Just a reminder that Chastity/Chaz got acceptance from her Republican father, Sonny Bono, before her liberal mother, Cher, and Cher is still hardly lifting a finger for LGBT equality compared to what she could be doing given her wealth and popularity.)
For new gentle readers, Peter is a dear frequent commenter here and is retired from his career in law enforcement as a sheriff’s deputy in Texas. He blogs at Shakey Pete’s Shootin’ Shack — the link goes to his insightful post on the Gardasil vaccine controversy.
Peter W. Davis, 9/17/11, 1:25 am, in reply to Cynthia Yockey:
Here’s one thing I have, nothing much to do with gay marriage. Many of the beatings and robberies of gay men were and are never reported. And then the beatings and robberies are supposed to be about “gay hatred” among the robbers when most of the robbers have no particular feelings about gays and are even sometimes gay themselves. It was more a question of what crime is easiest to get away with? Obviously the ones that do not get reported.
We never really got a handle on that. Add that gay men are often more affluent and tend to wear better watches and jewlery while cruising semi-secluded places and there was a situation that was very frustrating to LEOs. Robbers belong in jail. We couldn’t even start to look for them because the crimes wouldn’t be reported, well, not until we found a dead body.
Meanwhile, The Advocate people aren’t much interested in what an old redneck Texas boy has to say, they’d rather live in a dream world of being hated by the right while the left sides with those who hang gay men from construction cranes.
Ggreen, 9/16/11, 9:37 am:
You are delusional and you need to fire your hair stylist, Who is it Pepco?
Cynthia Yockey, 9/16/11, 10:08 am, in reply to Ggreen:
Good one! My hair is naturally curly.
Paul Maršic, 9/16/11, 9:38 am:
A lucid, well-written op-ed! Ms. Yockey, if you ever need a Spanish translation of it, you can count on me (I could work on a first draft).
Cynthia Yockey, 9/16/11, 10:06 am, in reply to Paul Maršic:
Thank you, Paul, for your praise and kind offer. My contract with The Advocate has rules on when I may re-publish my piece. If other readers request a Spanish translation, I’ll let you know and will publish your translation in Spanish when my contract permits me to do so, if you still want to do it.
Silverafc, 9/16/11, 1:21 pm:
I talk to a lot more Conservatives than you or your readers, and other than the Bible toting Evangelicals, who are mostly a pain is the bottom anyway, most Conservatives don’t care one way or the other as long as you don’t expect a check from the taxpayers to go with it, or special rights. Much of the opposition to Gay rights on the Right stems from the impression that Gay advocates are just another front group for the Democrat campaign machine. It is not good politics to shower a group with insults and then ask for their votes.
Given the horror show Family Court has become, I don’t know why any sane Gay person would want to risk getting themselves tangled up in marriage, and take the risk of being financially responsible for your Ex after the relationship has run its course.
Here is my comment at Pajamas Media who linked to your article in The Advocate.
~ ~ ~
As a Libertarian, it is natural to be for Gay rights and marriage.
I voted against gay marriage when I had the chance specifically because I was angry that Democrats repeatedly outed Gay Republicans in elections and the main Gay movement political groups and spokesmen sat on their hands and did nothing. There is a huge double standard supported by mainstream Gay political organizations wherein Gay Democrats are celebrated, while it remains acceptable for Democrats to tar and feather Gay Republicans as they are ridden out of town on a rail.
Observing the behavior of official Gay political groups, it is hard to come to any other conclusion than that they are Democrat operatives first, and only secondly Gay rights advocates. When the majority of Gay political organizations routinely go ballistic when a Gay Republican is outed in the closing weeks of a close campaign, I will vote for the next gay marriage referendum that comes up.
~ ~ ~
I cannot see how gay marriage will have any affect on straight marriage. I does not take one straight person off the list of potential spouses, it does not prevent any straight person from getting married, and it does not bring about divorces amongst straight people.
If religious Conservatives really want to do something to shore up traditional marriages, they need to look to altering the current situation in divorce law and divorce settlements, and bring wholesale reform to the Family Courts. The current system allows women to literally drive their husbands out of their lives while retaining his financial support and use unfounded charges of abuse of themselves and their children to increase their share of his income while restricting his access to his own children.
It is the lopsided legal situation in Family Courts which no longer dispense blind justice, but rather start with the assumption that the woman is a victim of an evil male and entitled to compensation and support, and it is up to the male to prove otherwise in a court rigged against him, that is real cause of the disappearance of lifetime marriage as the social norm.
Cynthia Yockey, 9/16/11, 2:51 pm, in reply to Silverafc:
So your libertarian conscience led you to deny equality to lesbians and gays in order to dispense some kind of justice or wreak revenge for the acts of a few people with life-destroying consequences for the rest of the group innocent of wrong-doing?
My own conscience requires me to do the right thing whether or not I believe someone deserves it because I am neither God nor a court of law. I must do right because it is the right thing to do.
I hope in the future that you will support gay equality measures because it is the right thing to do. Social conservatives are the architects of the Left because they have driven out of the Right three groups that would benefit the most from fiscal conservatism: gays, women and Jews. Social conservatives also are responsible for a great deal of the misbehavior of the gay community because they have denied gays access to age-appropriate social milestones with family support and supervision and deny gays the support of most religions, demonize gays as being intrinsically evil independent of any action, then denounce them for not being socialized to their satisfaction. It’s a sweet catch-22 to destroy a group of people so comprehensively and then blame them for being damaged.
By the way, conservative feminist author Dr. Phyllis Chesler recently updated her book, Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody, and came up with different results than your own apparent experience regarding whether family courts favor mothers or fathers. See her post: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/08/what-to-expect-when-are-expecting-divorce/.
Silverafc, 9/16/11, 3:24 pm, in reply to Cynthia Yockey:
“I must do right because it is the right thing to do.”
When it gets to where you and other Gay advocates denounce Democrats and their media stooges for turning the fact that a Republican was discovered to be Gay into a career ending scandal, I’ll believe that.
Ms Chesler is just one more Feminist who blames all the problems in marriages on men. Women are equal contributors to the problems in marriages, and game the system by playing the victim card. You can go to any Men’s Rights site and find the truth. The whole family court system is rigged against men, and any man who marries or conceives any child is a fool.
Cynthia Yockey, 9/16/11, 3:44 pm, in reply to Silverafc:
I favor outing closeted politicians of both parties. It’s not being outed that destroys careers, it’s all the anti-gay activity that closeted politicians use as their cover that does them in. People don’t like being deceived and manipulated.