Leftward GLBT Soldiers

Oh where to begin with this recent op-ed in the Washington Blade. There is the subhead, "Only three years ago, states could turn gays into felons. Will we stand by while it happens to immigrants?" Sexual privacy vs. the border integrity of a sovereign nation. They're about equivalent. When you think about it. While heavily under the influence. It degenerates from there:

As I watched the marches in Los Angeles, Phoenix, Denver and New York of immigrants from all walks of life stand up for their rights, I wondered: Where are the gay marchers?

Hopefully marching for gay causes. Not always a given, I realize, but I'm a silly optimist.

The author then goes on to explain how illegal immigrants are exactly like gay folk. There are a few good points about same-sex binational relationships and the attendant inequality in legal immigration policy, the abhorrent treatment of HIV-positive individuals in obtaining visas, and a flawed asylum system that is far harsher towards gay individuals under persecution in their home countries. These are good, solid gay issues.

However, the author's basic thrust is "Illegal immigrants are a persecuted minority, and gay people are a persecuted minority, so let's back whatever they want." There is that whole illegal bit, but the author seems unconcerned with border protection, the law, national sovereignty, the work force, social costs, and other pesky issues that interfere in the assignation of special victim status.

Of course there is the requisite left-wing fun thrown in:

Congress would still require that local police enforce complicated immigration laws and allow them to detain those whom they simply believe to be in violation. Gays know well the problems with police misconduct and brutality, particularly those of color and gay youth. [. . .] Those who despise and scapegoat immigrants have no love for gays, either. The gay rights movement needs allies. But we must be real allies to others as well and rise to the occasion. Until we are all free, none of us are free.

The police are always suspect, and if you have serious concerns about illegal immigration, you probably hate gay people, too. Impeccable logic, no? As for blinkered liberal allegiance, is NARAL not enough? We've been sucking them off for ages to absolutely staggering returns.

Furthermore, the author is aware most illegal immigrants are conservative Catholics, yes? Good luck with that.

Comments

[Malcontent]

That one's a real beaut, from the headline down to the last word!

[Kevin]

Isn't it cool to be gay and not surrender the ability to think and reason for oneself? I think it makes me gayer. Happier, I mean.

[Queer Conservative]

So now we have to hook our little pink wagons to the support of open borders? Damn, that train of non-gay causes behind our primary concern is getting long...

GAY RIGHTS-Radical Feminism-Abortion Rights-Enviromental Radicals-Palestinian Terrorists-Castro/Hugo Chavez-Open Borders-What Next?

[Jamie]

I'm going to put a target on myself and say that I only have one problem with this post: the part where you mention the author's valid points, including poor treatment of HIV pos immigrants, and then you say:

These are "good, solid gay issues." I question the premise of that statement.

HIV is a HUMAN issue, not simply a gay one. When will we learn to start treating it as a disease like cancer, leukemia, MS, Bubonic Plague, TB, etc, instead of automatically buying into the popular notion of gays owning the HIV pandemic? It's a horrible disease that's automatically associated with gays--does that mean we accept it as a "gay" issue, or rather as something everyone should be concerned with?

Yep, there's a target on me now for sure.

[Jamie]

PS--Otherwise--as to your general thrust, Robbie--I very much agree. The two subjects are not inexorably linked as the author would have us believe. Nice job.

[PatrickP]

most illegal immigrants are conservative Catholics, yes?

They are Catholic, yes. But of a variety that does not fit American labels of "conservative" and "liberal." It's often pious, but inconsistent; fervent, but uneducated.

I have observed that their notions of sexuality are very different from ours and not as "machismo" bound as we might think. (This is just my observation.)

[Tommy]

I don't take issue with your issues with the editorial.

I do want to point out as information, that the United Farmworkers of America (Hugo Chavez group now headed by his daughter, which largely represents migrant workers) last year came out strongly against a ban on gay marriage type benefits legislation in Califonia and lobbied against other anti-gay measures.

My point is a small one compared to all that you're addressing but sometimes such coalitions work and sometimes one finds their friends where they can.

Tommy - Athens Greece

[raj]

...I wondered: Where are the gay marchers?...

THis is stupid. There may (or may not) have been gays among the marchers. How was the author supposed to determine whether there were or were not any gays among the marchers?

[Queer Conservative]

Quite honestly, I'd rather not be in "coalition" with Hugo Chavez on anything. Or any other person Cindy Sheehan dryhumps. Perhaps his daughter could better spend her time trying to stop the repressive regime he's strangling Venezuela with?

And, raj, I'm sure there were gays among the marchers. But that doesn't make it even remotely a "gay rights" issue. I mean, just because you take a dump and flush it, does that make the maintence of your city's sewage system a "gay rights" issue?

[Queer Conservative]

Raj - that comment wasn't directed "at" you - but to concur...

[Rev. Jack Malebranche]

The Robbie-meister has no patience for the gay left this fine springtime Friday!

Maybe we should add an 'II' onto GLBTQ to stand for 'illegal immigrants.' But there's supposed to be an I somewhere for 'intersexed,' I think. Maybe a 'W' can stnd for 'wetback.'

Until we are all free, none of us are free.

RIGHT.

Like THAT means anything...

Further proof that many gay men only understand polical perspectives that can be watered down into in a feel good house anthem and sung by a strong black woman.

[Tommy]

Sorry - writing too fast. My comment above meant to reference Ceasar Chavez (from the 60's) not Hugo from Venezuala.

[Rev. Jack Malebranche]

The Robbie-meister has no patience for the gay left this fine springtime Friday!

Maybe we should add an 'II' onto GLBTQ to stand for 'illegal immigrants.' But there's supposed to be an I somewhere for 'intersexed,' I think. Maybe a 'W' can stnd for 'wetback.'

Until we are all free, none of us are free.

RIGHT.

Like THAT means anything...

Further proof that many gay men only understand polical perspectives that can be watered down into in a feel good house anthem and sung by a strong black woman.

[Queer Conservative]

Sorry - writing too fast. My comment above meant to reference Ceasar Chavez (from the 60's) not Hugo from Venezuala.

Well, that's what I thought, and it makes more sense. But I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. It's a crazy world these days.

C. or H. Chavez - they're both socialists.

[Seattle]

I support open borders *and* gay rights. But it's political madness to advocate for these as a coalition.

Ordinary people (as opposed to activists) can see that these two issues are not logically connected. So right off, they're going to question your intelligence and sincerity. As a result, they're not going to be too interested in hearing what else you have to say on either issue.

Coalition-building often takes on a life of its own. Activists start to think that forming coalitions *is* the actual result they are seeking. None of this matters, of course, if your true goal is to feel like you are "making a difference," rather than to actually effect change.

[Tommy]

That's fine if you don't want to be tainted socialist pink (whether Ceasar was or not, although he certainly was a unionist), but where are the large conservative organizations lobbying for gays in state legislatures?

[PatrickP]

Further proof that many gay men only understand polical perspectives that can be watered down into in a feel good house anthem and sung by a strong black woman.

And you are NOT a strong black woman!

[Queer Conservative]

but where are the large conservative organizations lobbying for gays in state legislatures?

They're probably hanging out with the consistently "pro-gay" Democratic legislators...

You know like John Kerry, oops bad example. How about Hillary Clinton...eep - strike 2. I know - Bill Clinton was consistently pro-gay...what? Oh - I'm outta here...

[Tommy]

None of those people are state legislators.

[Rev. Jack Malebranche]

And you are NOT a strong black woman!

True dat. That phrase will never get old.

[Queer Conservative]

Tommy - I didn't say they were state legislators, I said: legislators. You also didn't mention state legislators, you mentioned state legislatures to make a point about conservatives being anti-gay; presumably across the board. Extrapolating on that I spoke of the lack of consistent support for gay rights on the left, using three well know Democrats. Yes, only two of which are actually legislators, but you know what I meant. But you made a good dodge, well executed, I give it a 9...

[Jamie]

Come to Vermont. We have pro-gay legislators in our legislature. All over the fuckin' place.

I own you all.

[North Dallas Thirty]

I think this is a sign that the gay left has finally gone completely off the deep end.

Or that anyone who is paid enough can advocate a position which would be the equivalent of suicide for the gay rights movement.

One wonders how much Chavez and her merry band of illegals would be supporting gays if, for once, we said, "Sorry, but we're not going to support your moonbat campaign. Thanks for what you did last year, though."

[Tommy]

Oh, I thought you were explaing the lack of large conservative organizations lobbying State legislators on behalf of gays. It would not matter if they were Republican or Democrat.

[cyberkevinblogs@comcast.net]

No, no Tommy, I make no excuses for conservatives. I'm just saying if you think the Democrats are any better, you may as well let Zacharias Moussaoui fly the next plane you get on.

[raj]

cyberkevinblogs@comcast.net | April 28, 2006 at 10:49 PM

It appears as though Tommy is distinguishing conservatives vs. liberals, whereas you apparently wish to bring in Republicans vs. Democrats. False dichotomy. Just to remind you, not all Democrats are liberal on every issue, and not all Republicans are conservative on every issue.

Conservative Republicans refer to moderate or liberal Republicans as RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), but that's another issue.

[Queer Conservative]

Well Raj,

Considering the Democrats are the only generally liberal political group and Republicans the only generally conservative political group that actually have influential numbers of elected officials in government - and thus could be effectively lobbied as suggested in Tommy's post - yeah, that's how I'm framing it. A generalization to make a point? Yes. False dichotomy? No.

I'm sorry if I confused you, I thought you could keep up.