The Homeowner: Compassionate conservatism

By Mike Prevatt

I'm a media junkie. I spend a decent portion of my free time perusing news websites, magazines and weekly newspapers. And while keeping up with the Net and the local rags has been relatively easy, given the timeliness of their copy and the need to read it sooner rather than later, I've had a harder time on the mag front. It was just recently that I noticed how behind I am in reading the Advocate, the gay community's equivalent to Time, the one periodical you might suspect I'd prioritize over the rest.

What's been difficult, thumbing through the 10 or so unread issues in my possession, is deciding which articles to delve deeply into, and which ones to pass over. It feels like half the Advocate's copy of late relates to same-sex marriage, and it's all starting to blur--except for one piece, in the back of last week's issue. There, openly gay commentator Andrew Sullivan finally revealed which presidential candidate he's not voting for--or, rather, the one he's not endorsing, and that's George W. Bush.

This might sound like a no-brainer, considering that, for one, gays typically vote Democrat, and two, it's really not in their best interest to vote Republican, at least when it comes to social policy. But Sullivan, though officially an independent when it comes to the ballot, is a tried-and-true conservative. He endorsed Bush Jr. in 2000, so the declaration last week is a considerable one. It came down to a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage that Bush unequivocally supports--the "deal-breaker," as Sullivan calls it.

There may be no more eloquent or informed writer when it comes to same-sex marriage, and it's the main reason I read his blog (andrewsullivan.com) on a daily basis. Sullivan strikes me as a traditionalist who relishes the idea of a family to come home to, and the rhetoric-free earnestness he conveys when writing about that, especially from the gay perspective, is refreshing. In February, he published a piece called "The `M-Word'" in Time and it was the single most passionate piece I've read on the topic, not because it persuasively argued why gays should be able to legally marry, but because it was a personal account of how marriage symbolizes and connects the most important things in one's life--love, family, home, dignity and, particularly for gays, equality. (He just released the updated Same-Sex Marriage, Pro and Con: A Reader.)

However, it's been tough to agree with much of what Sullivan has said. I don't agree with his pro-war stance on Iraq (he's a total hawk). I don't mesh with the principles of fiscal conservatism, which he champions (although, if it helps sway other conservatives to also take a pass on spend-happy Bush come November, he can max out his blog bandwidth on the subject as far as I'm concerned). And I struggle to understand why gays and lesbians would align themselves with conservatives, especially when, few exceptions aside, that political group has gone to every expense to discriminate against homosexuals.

This also is partly why I've been reading Sullivan's work so much of late--I'm waiting for gay conservatives to come around and finally denounce the bigot in the Oval Office, as well as anyone endorsing this blatantly homophobic constitutional amendment. But I'm also completely fascinated by gay conservatism.

As a liberal, I think such a concept is absurd and maddening. But I'm also insanely curious as to how right-leaning gays and lesbians negotiate their political beliefs with who they are. It would be easy to say these people are just conflicted. But I disagree. I imagine it takes an immense amount of soul searching to arrive at the point where you're supporting those who threaten to keep you down. That sort of human complexity interests me.

I've written before about the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay political organization trying to encourage fairness and inclusion within the GOP. Talk about a lost cause, right? These guys still haven't given their position on the presidential election. A few of them have publicly rejected Bush's support for the amendment, but no one seems to have reached breaking point yet. And in a sick way, I'm waiting for that threshold moment to hit, when the LCR finally says, "Enough's enough--we're taking our votes elsewhere," as Sullivan basically did last week.

I don't want anyone to admit defeat. I'm not really a told-you-so sort of guy. And I don't think there's some sort of personal redemption to be gained by rejecting Bush and his cronies. But I sincerely believe the right wing--especially the religious right, a group the evangelical president must openly court and appease to win in November--is hellbent on hurting gays and lesbians. Their language is unabashedly hateful, and their policy proposals mean to isolate the gay community from the rest of the country. I really wish that even the most devoted of hawks and fiscal conservatives playing for our team would acknowledge that, and take proper action in the voting booth. Of course, they might claim a vote the other way is too big a personal sacrifice. Frankly, I think we've sacrificed enough.

The Homeowner appears biweekly. Send your comments and nude pics (especially if you look like Joseph Gordon-Levitt) to oughtabeinporn@yahoo.com.