UPDATED How to grab the gay equality issue from the Left

by CynthiaYockey on April 3, 2010

I have a proposal for attracting to conservatism a demographic that’s up-for-grabs. There are three blog publishers who are in a position to do this. Each one could do it alone, but it will make a bigger impact if they hold hands and make the leap of faith together.

My proposal is that at least one publisher of a conservative group blog make their blog a conservative-gay-friendly space by doing the following:

  1. Publishing columns that are in favor of homosexual equality by authors who make their case in terms of the values of conservatives, such as liberty, the Constitution, capitalism, strengthening marriage and the family, and so on.
  2. Refusing to publish any column, podcast, radio show or TV show expressing opposition to equality for homosexuals.
  3. Allowing debate on the merits of homosexual equality in the comments on each piece, but setting a high standard for approving comments by refusing to publish any that are rude or include personal attacks or name-calling.

Hear me out — this is NOT censorship.

After all, regarding item two above — every conservative online publication — and CPAC — has a point-of-view and rejects writers and performers and speakers who oppose it. For example, conservative women do not have to argue with opponents of their equality — and I remember when equality for women WAS controversial. No one gets to advocate white supremacy, or call for a return to the days of segregation. Muslims and anti-semites do not get to argue for the destruction of Israel and of Jews. No one is allowed to claim that Islam is misunderstood by Muslims carrying out its instructions to kill infidels. You don’t get to glorify socialism, fascism, Communism, Leftism, totalitarianism, statism, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin, Che, Chavez or Castro.

So there ARE boundaries that it is not considered censorship to enforce.

The first thing establishing this policy will do is create a space that gives lesbian and gay conservatives the dignity of advocating for their own equality instead of only being allowed to fight for the liberty of others because their own cause is too insignificant. After all — Obama, the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan — we have bigger problems. Well, you know what? We figured out how to give blacks and women their equality during the Viet Nam war, Watergate, the oil embargoes, inflation, double-digit interest rates and the Iran hostage crisis. So there’s every reason to get going on the process of equality for homosexuals right now and no excuse for stalling.

Second, such a policy will result in a blog that lesbians and gays could enjoy reading, so they can get acquainted with the ideas of fiscal conservatism in an atmosphere of comparative peace. Discrimination has forced so many lesbians and gays into entrepreneurial careers that they are the natural constituency of fiscal conservatism. Obama and the Democrats have broken their promises to lesbians and gays, who are starting to realize that the Left also has social conservatives — Protestant blacks, Muslims, illegal and legal Catholic immigrants — who are intractably allied AGAINST equality for lesbians and gays. This means lesbians and gays who would be open to conservatism are a demographic up-for-grabs.

So, in the face of such hatred, exploitation and betrayal on the Left, why don’t more lesbians and gays leave?

Lesbians and gays act like battered wives and refuse to leave their abusers because they don’t have any safe place to go. They don’t know that fiscal conservatism is an option as their new home. They don’t know how much the Leftist mainstream media and blogosphere lie to them to keep them in the fold. And all they see of conservatism is social conservatives who demonize them.

But social conservatives do not own every square inch of the conservative movement. And welcoming lesbians and gays does not mean the loss of religion, God and good values. After all, one of the first organizations founded at the dawn of the gay rights movement was the Metropolitan Community Church. And the aspirations of lesbians and gays for equality are noble ones: to marry, to create a family through adoption, and to serve their country in the military with exactly the same openness about their sexual orientation that straights have, along with the same duties.

Finally, setting this policy will take from the Left one of its favorite accusations against conservatives of bigotry. It also will expose the Left’s fraudulent tolerance and real abuse and exploitation of homosexuals. Imagine the contortions of deception that Obama and the Democrats will be forced into in order to halt the stampede of their gay cash cows! Obama might even have to keep a promise!!!!!11!!!!1!!!! Seriously, isn’t it worth doing for that alone?

Dear gentle readers, what do you think of this proposal?

Update, 4/6/2010, Tues.: Woohoo! This post has been linked by Queerty! There was a bit of snark and a touch of doubt that I am in my right mind, as evidenced by my refusal to accept the religion of anthropogenic global warming, rebranded as climate change, just because the scientific evidence doesn’t support the theory. However, basically the post was fair, so good on them for that. There were exploding heads in the comments, but that is par for the course.

Anyway, Queerty readers, there ARE plenty of people on the Right who DO support gay equality and we are grabbing that issue and running with it. We are going to expose the lies of Democrats, who say they are helpless to keep their promises to gays because of all the bigots on the Right. Yo, yo, yo! Leftist gays and lesbians! Your problem is bigots on the Left! Democrats control the Congress and White House — if you do not hold their feet to the fire and set a deadline like July 4 to get the legislation for our equality passed and signed into law, you are making the mistake of a lifetime! Do NOT give another penny to the Democrats or one second of your labor until that happens. No excuses. No delays. No “we’ve got bigger problems.”

The Democrats are abusing you and laughing at you because they think they’ve got you trapped. Well, fiscal conservatism is a much nicer world than Leftism and is ready to welcome you with open arms. Keep coming back and I will explain why and how. In the meantime, the more Obama/Pelosi/Reid see that you WILL leave for a better offer and you HAVE one, the more leverage you have. Take it. Use it. And be prepared for the possibility that finally making the Democrats put up or shut up will reveal that they have practiced a mind-boggling deception on you for their own selfish ends.

Follow conservativelez on Twitter

Liz April 4, 2010 at 8:01 am

I agree. I’d also say that I know a lot of conservatives – even religious social conservatives – who agree with you already, for a number of reasons. What you’re suggesting is just reflecting what I believe to be majority opinion for conservatism.

PS: I think *social* conservatives need to be reasoned with as well, even if it’s just from a libertarian point of view, or because it’s stupid to complain about the supposed promiscuity of LGBTs when you exclude them completely the only moral code you believe to be correct. I’ve found the younger generation of evangelicals are more accepting of homosexuality.

Cynthia Yockey April 4, 2010 at 8:58 am


Thank you — I think you are right.

We will be able to appeal to the very best people among social conservatives — the ones who chose their spiritual path because of their idealism and goodness and who are emotionally healthy and inner-directed. “Inner-directed” means they make their decisions from their own sense of right and wrong.

There are three groups of people that currently dominate the discussion of gay equality among conservatives:

1. Outer-directed people — they have a damaged or immature self and therefore there is nothing inside them capable of making emotional and spiritual decisions. To compensate, they govern themselves by their intellects and an external set of rules and the approval of people or institutions outside of themselves. There’s no point in talking to them, yet they are the people who are usually making the anti-gay-equality arguments.

2. Closeted homosexuals who fight gay equality both to try to make themselves straight and to deceive others that they are straight.

3. People who believe they must oppose gay equality because it threatens their power and wealth. Usually these are religious leaders. They position their opposition as being based on morality (in order to appeal to their inner-directed followers) and on laws of Nature and/or rules of their religion (in order to capture the support of their outer-directed and closeted gay followers).

There’s really no sense talking with the above three groups.

However, the inner-directed religious and spiritual people CAN and MUST be engaged in this discussion. They are interested in knowing the reasons that gay equality is consistent with and supports their most fundamental values. And they do not want their child to commit suicide or become estranged because of their religion.


Kelly April 4, 2010 at 12:09 pm

I am so 100% with you, Cynthia! Please keep this up – this is wonderful!

And you’re right, it’s not censorship, it’s choice. When the government mandates limits on speech, that’s censorship, and that’s terrifying. When the private sector does it, it’s capitalism – because customers still have the choice to opt in or out. So long as individuals or businesses are not threatening or harming anyone or any groups of people, individuals and businesses retain the right to present and maintain their viewpoints and messages. I really hope that conservatives stridently adhere to the viewpoint of unconditional liberty.

I hope that conservatives are willing to make the first move here – and that move is showing gays and lesbians that the conservative movement is one that is friendly and supportive of them. If we build it, so to speak, they will come. This is the moment – the moment where more and more democrats are having their eyes opened to just how far left the democratic party has moved, even when they themselves have not.

And to those republicans and conservatives still hesitant to open their hearts up to gays and lesbians, please see that to advocate stipulations on liberties is to be anti-liberty; you have to go all in for liberty to avoid the slippery slope. Period. We’ve been on the slippery slope for decades – and look where’s it’s gotten us: To the edge of the cliff.

The left has unfortunately done a top notch job and making too many Americans believe that the conservative movement is inextricably linked to religion. It is a lie. Period. We conservatives are first and foremost about liberty in all forms – economic liberty, religious liberty, individual liberty, social liberty. It is true that some republicans and conservatives need to be reminded about that last one – so let’s shed the light, people! And let’s welcome all those American-loving patriots, whomever they may be, without condition!

It will just take one – just one! – of the left’s voter blocks to defect to cause their house of cards (rather, lies) to collapse. Gays and lesbians might just be the lowest hanging fruit. (Oh dear…I swear on my life that was not an off-color pun!) Let’s wise up, republicans, and win the liberty battle, such that we can win the war to save America, and welcome anyone and everyone who supports the conservative cause!

Cynthia Yockey April 4, 2010 at 1:16 pm


Thank you!

Also, we want to reassure our conservative brethren and sistren that we know the difference between liberty and license — liberty is well-behaved and upright in character and action.


ajax April 4, 2010 at 3:16 pm

I think you’re missing out on something if you disallow opposing viewpoints. As a libertarian I support the establishment of gay marriage through either public referendum or act of state legislature. However, as a tactic I oppose the establishment of gay marriage via judicial fiat. A judge that can find infer rights in the federal or state constitution can just as easily take rights away based on judicial whim (e.g. the Kelo decision). That is the path to tyranny. Achieving societal change through judicial activism is endorsed by progressives, but alienates many in the middle or on the right. Eschew the “easy path” to gay marriage, and you may gain greater support and more quickly and permanently achieve your goals.

Cynthia Yockey April 4, 2010 at 9:06 pm


I said that opposing viewpoints can be expressed courteously in the comments. That’s more than the National Review Online allows.

I didn’t say anything about the best path to equality for lesbians and gays. You brought it up. But since you did, homosexuals live under tyranny right now. We are second-class citizens. Straight illegal aliens have more rights than every lesbian or gay citizen of the United States, including the right to serve in our military. Homosexuals are a real minority and deserve the protection of the courts.

Religions work hard to impose their tenets on the general population using the coercive force of government. They have been successful because they are organized, wealthy and powerful. It is a coalition of religions — Mormon, Catholic, evangelical Protestant and Black Liberation Theology — that have spent their money and mobilized their members to fight equality for homosexuals. Their goal is to control the reproductive lives of their members and prospective converts to increase their own wealth and power.

And the real slippery slope we are standing on is the one where one of those churches overthrows the Constitution and takes over. If you object to a nanny state, you’re not going to love a nanny religion, either, especially if it isn’t yours. If these religions do not have that as their goal, then why else are they constantly doing everything they can to violate the separation of church and state by imposing by the coercive power of the state behaviors they have failed to elicit through the persuasive powers allowed them? This includes their war to get their religious beliefs on Creationism/Intelligent Design — which was established using a distortion and misappropriation of the work of Hubert P. Yockey, my father — in schools and universities. That certainly is not a crazier scenario than the one J.D. Hayworth and others like to portray of a future where people marry their horses if gays attain equality under the law at the federal, state and local levels.


Lori Heine April 4, 2010 at 11:54 pm

If we have any chance of ridding ourselves of the tyranny of the federal government’s forcing citizens to buy a product — once a nightmare, now possibly a reality under Obama’s healthcare “reform” legislation — where do these people on the Right who cry about “judicial activism” think it’s gonna come from?

Our liberation from this unconstitutional “law” will come from…drum roll, please…JUDICIAL ACTIVISM!

Voila! Conservatives LOVE them some judicial activism — as long as they can see the need for it.

Discrimination against gays and lesbians, as officially mandated by the laws of our land, is as unconstitutional as those portions of the healthcare bill conservatives hope to see judges rule against.

Judges are supposed to rule in favor of the Constitution. It is their job to protect the supreme law of our land by seeing to it that it is properly interpreted, and that improper interpretations are thrown out. I say, long live “judicial activism!”
.-= Lori Heine´s last blog ..Tea Party in the Cafeteria =-.

Kelly April 4, 2010 at 11:56 pm


Oops, I meant to say STRINGENTLY adhere to, not stridently. Not at all calling for bad behavior. Anything but dignified and respectful behavior would cause us to lose credibility, which is the last thing I want. Sorry for the confusion!

George April 5, 2010 at 7:21 am

My perspective as someone who has been involved in combating inequalities in the UK for the past 20 years. Is that the more the issues are framed in emotional and moral terms. the less politicised they become.

However the left right divide still comes into play, here it is viewed as the left being more open to equality issues. The right being less so.

Here is a link to the Conservative (Right Wing) leader contender for the prime minister at the next election. http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/business_money/cameron8217s+flustered+gay+times+interview/3587867

What do you think, this here certainly informed peoples views.

Cynthia Yockey April 5, 2010 at 8:21 am


Thank you for your perspective.

I am shocked that lesbians and gays on the Left are so uncomprehending of the Left’s bigotry towards them. The Left supports Islam, which kills gays and treats women as property (and kills them, too). The Left supports Black Liberation Theology, which is bigoted against gays. The Left supports open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens, who come from cultures that consider it their duty to kill gays and that consider women as property (that last one is not an abstract observation — I lived in the heart of an area near Washington, D.C., that was overwhelmed with illegal immigrants). If the Left supported equality for homosexuals, then we would have gotten our equality in 2009 thanks to the Democrats controlling Congress and the White House. We didn’t. They don’t.

If a conservative publisher creates the kind of space for discussion that I’m suggesting — which is really just safety from being backstabbed and mobbed by the other authors the site publishes, and the dignity of a strict courtesy policy for commenters — then there’s no better way of demonstrating that the Right’s objections to homosexual equality are based on rational objections rather than intractable prejudice. Certainly on the Right there is a mix of both. But the Left claims it has no objections — yet does nothing because its levers of power are controlled by those who are gripped by intractable prejudice. In contrast, the Right has a critical mass of people who are persuadable about homosexual equality and simply need to know that it will lead to good things: strengthening the institution of marriage, improved morals, social stability, less costs to government and a stronger military — which it will.

Short version: the Right is vastly less prejudiced than the Left. A blog with the policy I propose will put that out in the sunshine for all to see.


Serapia April 5, 2010 at 9:57 am

Great idea, Cynthia!

Like Liz, I’ve met many social conservatives — particularly the younger ones — who either already agree with you, or are open to listening.

And, as other readers may have pointed out when you said, “Hear me out — this is NOT censorship,” you are perfectly right. Enforcing boundaries of decorum on your own property is never censorship: it is a property right.

Stinky April 5, 2010 at 12:53 pm

First, I’m having some problems with my browser, and my comments are either not coming through or getting posted twice. If that happens again, I’m apologizing in advance.

Once again, a post with a lot of food for thought!

“Lesbians and gays act like battered wives and refuse to leave their abusers because they don’t have any safe place to go.” You are absolutely right.

Why this idea technically isn’t censorship: a blog is not a newspaper, or part of the mainstream television media, which set themselves up as the unbiased keepers of the gate, allegedly holding politicians feet to the fire. A blog is not the State, suppressing or supporting various opinions.

To me, by definition, a blog has a viewpoint. You don’t have to print articles that disagree with your goals, but I do think it is an excellent idea to include RESPECTFUL comments, exactly as you suggest. I can’t tell you how fed I am when I run across some lunacy in an otherwise interesting comment threat, and it remains there, because the blog author has an open door policy regarding comments. By lunacy I mean name calling, smearing, calls for violence, and other invectives.

“But social conservatives do not own every square inch of the conservative movement.” Yup. I want to point out that even among social conservatives, there is a spectrum of opinion. My husband and I fall in the behavior camp; by that I mean that there are certain types of behavior that are morally (yes! I used that word!) superior to others, in my opinion. So, (hold on to your seat), I would be happier to have a gay child in a loving marriage, than a heterosexual child who was behaving like Jesse James and Tiger Woods. Why? Because I believe that monogamy, marriage, and stability are good for society.

I think I may have shocked you. If you need to go have a cup of tea, I understand.

Peter April 6, 2010 at 3:06 am

You will pardon me, Cyn, for being somewhat disjointed these days, between hurting my poor old back (the pills for that make me slow and stupid, or rather slower and stupider) and Linda Lou taking full advantage of her broken bones to work me like an ol’ Missouri mule I haven’t had much time to think about this post. Still, let me say that equality is not a left issue, it belongs to us on the right. We are the ones who look out and see individuals while the left sees groups.

You should, through our conversations, know that I am not opposed to gay marriage, I simply do not with to jump in without thinking of all the secondary issues. These range from adding to the family courts which are already groaning under the weight of the messes we heteros have made of our lives to being able to figure out which of the fistfights in a gay household are the normal thing of two guys or wether it’s domestic violence. Notice that if some poor bluesuit guesses wrong one way it’s a bunch of lifetime legal problems such as the loss of Second Amendment rights. Guess wrong the other way and it could result in death. Urban bluesuits already spend about 20-25% of a shift as poorly trained marriage counselors.

None of these, and three dozen other problems, mean I am against full equality. It’s just that when I was a slick sleeved rookie working with my first senior training deputy I learned to try to think of the ramifications. He taught me to always look for the size of the dog poop before I jumped over that backyard fence chasing a bad guy. So while other rookies were thinking of the glory of catching the crook and instead meeting a bad tempered Rottie or Dobie I got to let the bad guy meet Gertie the German Shepherd.

So, don’t let me peeping over the fence, looking at the size of the dog poop make you think I’m against you. I just want to make sure you get chased by short legged Pugs instead of Pit Bulls.
.-= Peter´s last blog ..Grimmest Economic News Yet! =-.

Cynthia Yockey April 6, 2010 at 10:26 am


OK, first of all, I’m so sorry I missed your birthday on March 28! I wish you and Linda Lou and the doggies every blessing always, especially divine protection, divine guidance, good health, prosperity, love and progress. I should have looked in on you at Shakey Pete’s Shootin’ Shack sooner to see how you are doing! I’m not sure what you mean about the possible loss of Second Amendment rights — do you mean for the individual officer if he or she gets sued and loses? Or everyone? I can’t tell. As you know, I support our Second Amendment rights and was a Junior NRA Expert Sharpshooter, the second highest rank.

As for secondary issues of gay equality, especially gay marriage, I don’t think we’ll be too much worse or very much better than straight people. I know you’ve said that you’ve had to investigate some grisly murders by gays or lesbians of their partners. I do think that equality will save lives in those situations because my guess is those couples were closeted and/or socially isolated. The closet is a pressure cooker on high heat, while social isolation increases despair and a sense of nothing to lose. That’s a dangerous combination. Equality gets same-sex couples out of the closet and connected to their families, neighbors, colleagues and community. It’s a healthier foundation for life, which is bound to produce healthier results.


Mark J. Koenig April 6, 2010 at 2:58 pm


Thank you for another superb, insightful post. I agree with you completely on this subject and will be working diligently alongside you to help achieve the ultimate goal – homosexual equality – as well as the interim first step of persuading a conservative group blog to adopt an explicit gay-friendly policy such as you describe.

I’d just like to add that while I think the goal of bringing more gays into the conservative fold is a worthy and noble one, I fear that this will be a very long, hard struggle. This is because of the fact that – like the black community – the gay community enforces a groupthink mentality among its more “outer-directed” members – to use your term. In other words, a gay person, like a black person, loses his/her “street cred” by self-identifying as conservative. They are in many cases purged from the community and often lose many friends if they choose this path. I know – it happened to me many years ago, only shortly after I came out in the early 1980’s. We and others like us of strong will and spirit are able to withstand this backlash, but many of our fellow gays are either unable or unwilling to do so. For a prime example, one need look no further than Andrew Sullivan.

I look forward with excitement and great anticipation to this fight – but I am under no illusions as to its arduous nature and probably long duration.

Cynthia Yockey April 6, 2010 at 8:30 pm


Thank you, Mark! The approach I take to defeating darkness is to turn on the light — that is not a long process. I’m also using love, joy and humor, so this is going to be more fun than you anticipate.


Peter April 6, 2010 at 6:06 pm

Actually, Cyn, the more grisly of the domestic violence on the gay side have been in cities where teh ghey is more common. I suspect that many of those are from the one partner wanting to be in a strict faithful relationship and the other partner wanting to have all the” fun” of the anonymous and semi-anonymous sex of the parks and the glory holes. The others? Mostly committed by people who aren’t strictly gay but more of the sexual predator type. Someone guesses wrong on a one night stand and the predator notices the nice car, the gold cuff links and Rolex watch, etc and kills. For reasons I do not fully understand, instead of a simple stabbing or shooting, the violence is usually far more than needed for a simple killing. Now that I’m long retired, I do not want to try to understand those reasons. I’d rather devote my effort to understanding the dogs or cowboy action shooting.

As to the loss of the 2A rights, this is fairly new. Someone with a restraining order loses 2A rights and also a conviction of even misdemeanor domestic violence. The trouble here is that gay men are in addition to being gay, are guys. Guys tend to get in fights. Guys tend to be dogs. It has taken a certain amount of effort to have stayed faithful to my Linda Lou, especially back when I had hair, a chest and biceps. Lots of men, gay and straight, do not make such an effort. In any relationship, gay or straight, this can lead to violence. Two guys, well the violence can be louder , with more breakage, leading the neighbors to call in the bluesuits. As it is now, it’s two guys sharing a house, making a little noise. If we can we don’t usually even make an arrest unless the physical damage is worse than a black eye and a split lip. Nor do we go out of our way to count the beds, etc. If we can get ’em apart, get one to spend the night elsewhere we usually will do so, leaving with a warning about “I don’t want to come back here”. That has worked pretty well for a long time. Oddly enough, that also usually worked for hetero fights. The ugly domestic violence things we’ve read about are the results of a tiny minority of the family dispute calls that took up so much of our time. Ninety nine percent of the time an Officer’s judgment about giving them an impartial person to air the disagreement, a good talking to, making one partner spend the night someplace else, to in last resort, an arrest, worked.

The new rules? Don’t work. they take the Officer’s judgment out of the equation. The husband, grabbing the wife’s arm to keep her from hitting him again, is now guilty of domestic violence. So is she, but, in the absence of a cut or bruise, no evidence.

Lastly, I know of no unusual frequency of lesbian serious violence. I’m sure there are some, after all the incidence of violent crime by women has increased over the last few decades and lesbians, being women, are probably included. Still, if there is a lesbian equivalent of the glory holes and the public parks, I do not know of it. If you do, please don’t tell me. I’d like to go to my grave with a tiny bit of my innocence intact.
.-= Peter´s last blog ..Grimmest Economic News Yet! =-.

Cynthia Yockey April 6, 2010 at 8:39 pm


Thank you for providing more background.

There is no lesbian equivalent of the glory holes and public parks.

I’m still looking forward to your stories of meeting the rock stars of the 1960’s in San Francisco before they were famous.


Peter April 7, 2010 at 1:31 am

There is really nothing much to those stories. In Joplin’s case I and a girlfriend of the time were cutting up the ally behind a big club or theater. I’m going to say the Fillmore but that doesn’t have to be right, that’s been a LOT of years.She was standing at the stage door taking a break from rehearsals. My girlfriend, a nice chubby girl with low morals (I used to like that in a woman) recognized her and said hello. We spoke for a few minutes and then out came this hairy man mountain to try to run us off. When he found out I was one of Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children he got a little less hostile and we finished our conversation which was mostly about Texas, me being from southwest Texas and she from southeast Texas. Then she went back inside, we went on our way and that was it.

The Morrison story was even more mundane. A high school pal of mine was a helluva lot smarter than me and had won a scholarship to Berkeley in one of the math things which even then gave me a headache just to try to imagine. He had an invite to a party, I went along. Morrison was there with several adoring girls around. Instead of the girls Morrison got high as a kite on some kind of pills and slobbering drunk.

I was surprised at Joplin’s death, too young. I understand that she was confused about her sexuality. I read that at one point she was passed around biker types like a bottle of cheap wine. She may have actually preferred girls. All I know is she had too much talent to die that young.

Morrison? A drunken, low talent lout.

Cynthia Yockey April 7, 2010 at 11:29 am


Janis Joplin’s lesbian lover wrote an autobiography of their time together. I read it in the 1970’s when it was first published and cried my heart out. I think Janis Joplin was a lesbian. We see that type of promiscuity with men by lesbians who are trying to make themselves straight, or sometimes just because they need comfort and men are easy.

I’ll agree that Jim Morrison was a lout, but I think he was talented and I love his luminous voice and his music.


Diane April 7, 2010 at 6:39 am

I think it’s a nice idea, but it may be hard to get gays to agree with you. It’s not a matter of telling them about fiscal responsibility and so on…they’re so brainwashed, most of them are incapable of rational thought. Just this evening, I read a nice article at afterellen.com, about a charming young actress, who was unfortunately wearing a keffiyeh. I pointed this out, and was quickly put in my place by a lezbot (no offense, I’m also a lesbian). The fangirls on that site simply don’t care that their heroines are leftist idiots. Do you really hope to teach these people to think for themselves? Here’s the link, in case you want to get really depressed.

Cynthia Yockey April 7, 2010 at 11:39 am


Thank you for the link — I’ll check it out.

Yes, I absolutely do intend to teach Leftist gays and lesbians to think for themselves. I started advocating for the lesbian and gay community at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor shortly after I came out in 1972. I have a long perspective on this movement. And I have built this blog on the concept that people, regardless of their politics, respond well to being seen with love and having attention focused on their best qualities and highest aspirations. I also make it safe for people to disagree with me as long as they express their opinions courteously. I have wonderful readers who do seem to enjoy this approach.

I hope you will become a regular reader so you can see how this works.


Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: