One of the most annoying and hypocritical arguments homocons make is that gay identity should not affect someone's politics. We hear it in statements like "Just because I'm gay doesn't mean I'm liberal," "I'm not a single-issue gay voter," or "Gay issues aren't the only ones that are important to me."
OK, fair enough. I understand that position; in fact, I think almost all gay liberals probably believe that's true. Human experience is too complicated to be reduced to a question of sexual orientation. I'm liberal probably due to a number of factors, one of which is the fact that I'm gay. I get it.
But then they turn around, sometimes even in the same conversation, and start to push the proper gay point of view. Apparently there's a lot of whiplash involved in being a conservaqueer.
Just this past week, America's third-favorite gay Republican, James Kirchick, wrote a column for The Advocate about how silly San Francisco queers are for implying that there's a gay position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The column was also about how the proper gay position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is with Israel.
It must hurt a lot in Kirchick's head.
The constradictory statements aren't even that far apart, and Kirchick goes back and forth between them. Here's him complaining that there are queers in SF who want an even-handed solution to the conflict:
What makes QUIT oxymoronic is that their affinity for Palestine isn't reciprocated. There may be queers for Palestine, but Palestine certainly isn't for queers, either in the livable or empathetic sense. Like all Islamic polities, the Palestinian Authority systematically harasses gay people. Under the cloak of rooting out Israeli "collaborators," P.A. officials extort, imprison, and torture gays. But Palestinian oppression of homosexuality isn't merely a matter of state policy, it's one firmly rooted in Palestinian society, where hatred of gays surpasses even that of Jews. Last October, a gay Palestinian man with an Israeli lover petitioned Israel's high court of justice for asylum, claiming that his family threatened to kill him if he did not "reform." He's one of the few lucky Palestinians to be able to challenge his plight.
And here, two paragraphs later, is Kirchick arguing that one's sexuality shouldn't affect issues outside certain civil rights issues related to sexual orientation (I'm doubting he'd include gender identity, because, like, you know, just because a dude's gay doesn't mean he's not straight-acting):
It's these facts that make the notion of "Queers for Palestine" so bizarre. Contrary to what some gay activists might have you believe, there really are not that many political subjects where one's sexuality ought influence an opinion. Aside from the obvious issues related to civic equality (recognition of partnerships, open service in the military, etc.), how does homosexuality imply a particular viewpoint on complicated matters like Social Security Reform, health care policy, or the war in Iraq?
But then he makes this crazy statement about the GLF allying with organizations that were homophobic:
GLF leaders, for instance, played an instrumental role in the creation of the Venceremos Brigade, which dispatched starry-eyed American radicals to pick sugar cane in Cuba as a show of solidarity with the regime of Fidel Castro. (Like the Palestinian Authority, Communist Cuba didn't exactly return the kindness of its gay sympathizers; for decades it interned gays and HIV-positive individuals in prison labor camps). The GLF allied itself with a whole host of radical organizations (like the murderous Black Panthers) whose role in the struggle for gay equality was tenuous at best. And the very name of the GLF was adopted from the National Liberation Front, the moniker of the Vietnamese Communists.
Um, James? You know that one major party you and other gay Republicans ally with? The GOP? It's not that gay-friendly either. Just lettin' ya know, bro.
But I just don't get why the folks who are the most wrapped up in gay identity and using it to justify every position they hold are also the first ones to say that gay identity doesn't affect the rest of their politics, the ones who smugly claim that those folks who are gay and liberal just aren't thinking outside of their single-issues.
And if there's one thing Kirchick is, it's smug. If there's another thing he is, it's self-contradictory. So I wonder why the Advocate continues to run his non-sensical columns, which in and of itself should refute Kirchick's larger claims that conservatives are universally despised in the gay community....
But I'm sure they think they're being controversial and edgy and junk because they'll print his columns. And he thinks he's all controversial and edgy and junk by pushing the Washington establishment's line on most everything in a gay rag.
But why not offer a column to Ted Haggard instead? I hear he's looking for work, and his ideas are a lot more... fresh... than anything Kirchick's ever pounded on a keyboard.