Gay Conservatives and Duck Dynasty


We saw how the theo-conservatives rushed immediately to the defense of the Duck Dynasty douchebag’s bigoted and ignorant statements. But what do gay conservatives think about it? Turns out they’re divided on the subject, which should be a surprise to no one (at least no more surprising than the fact that there is such a thing as a gay conservative).

Self-identified gay conservatives, who seek to broaden the movement and the Republican Party to include them, have different takes on the controversy.

“The knee jerk reaction of some on the right to actually defend this kind of ugliness is yet another reminder of just how out of touch these folks are with where America is and where America is going,” says Chris Barron, a Republican activist who co-founded the gay conservative organization GOProud.

“Robertson wasn’t quoting from the Bible, he went on a vulgar and bigoted anti-gay rant,” says Barron, who stressed he was only speaking for himself and not on behalf of any organization.

Barron’s group was not invited to return as a co-sponsor of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in 2012 after a lobbying effort by social conservatives who believe gay organizations do not belong in the movement.

“I understand people having different opinions about whether A&E’s decision to suspend him was the right call,” says Barron. “What is so hard to comprehend is the desire of some on the right to defend the substance of what he said.”

Another gay conservative who has been attacked by socially conservative members of the Republican Party sees the Robertson controversy differently.

“The self-appointed gay leadership’s reaction to a reality show star’s personal religious views was troubling,” says Richard Grenell, who served as foreign policy spokesman for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign before resigning when his sexual orientation became a political issue.

“Gay Americans value free speech, don’t demand that everyone think like they do and aren’t nearly as thin-skinned as the so-called gay leadership,” Grenell says. “Tolerance means you are OK with people thinking differently than you do. Sadly, liberal intolerance is on the rise.”

But Michael Lucas, a self-identified conservative who owns one of the country’s largest gay pornography companies, Lucas Entertainment, says Americans shouldn’t tolerate intolerance.

“He is a religious-fundamentalist bigot, and the world is losing patience with that,” Lucas says. “In Afghanistan he would be fighting for the Taliban. In Russia he would be pulling the roof off gay clubs. We should not feel obliged to make room for this person in American popular culture.”

Wait, the owner of the largest gay porn company is a conservative? Wow. Seriously, that’s like being a Jewish Nazi.

Comments

  1. Chiroptera says

    Wait, the owner of the largest gay porn company is a conservative?

    I’m guessing that he makes enough money that he’s shielded from most of the day-to-day ugliness that gays, women, and minorities have to face while he stands to benefit even more from conservative fiscal policies.

  2. Sastra says

    I suspect that a lot of people choose their political affiliation based either on non-political factors (“my family has always voted Democrat”) or a single issue they’re passionate about and the rest of it is a sort of haze fading into the background.

    Of course, you can’t really say this about someone who is specifically involved in politics on a regular basis, I suppose.

  3. Trebuchet says

    Wait, a wealthy guy who owns the largest business of its kind in the country is a conservative? What a surprise. Not.

  4. says

    Wait, the owner of the largest gay porn company is a conservative?

    Now, look, it’s not like he’s working for Liberal Hollywood. Hot man on man gayhomo mansex is fine when the right people profit from it’s filming, distribution and sale. It’s not like this is Liberal Propaganda like Brokeback Mountain. And he’s a Job Creator, so it’s okay. And furthermore, shut up, that’s why.

  5. RickR says

    What is so hard to comprehend is the desire of some on the right to defend the substance of what he said.

    Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass, comprehension wouldn’t be such a daunting challenge.

    Richard Grenell, who served as foreign policy spokesman for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign before resigning when his sexual orientation became a political issue.

    “Gay Americans value free speech, don’t demand that everyone think like they do and aren’t nearly as thin-skinned as the so-called gay leadership,” Grenell says. “Tolerance means you are OK with people thinking differently than you do. Sadly, liberal intolerance is on the rise.

    Liberal intolerance is on the rise. Liberal intolerance.

    I just…..I can’t with these people.

  6. dan4 says

    @3: A lot of conservatives condemn pornography. A lot of conservatives condemn homosexuality. So, yes, it is kind of a surprise that someone “who owns one of the county’s largest gay pornography companies” is a conservative.

  7. Alverant says

    Conversely, Sastra, someone may agree with 50+% of a political stance so they decide to go with it even though the 50-% of how they disagree may be big issues. Without the religious aspects of homophobia, it wouldn’t be part of the conservative agenda (well probably won’t be) so if someone says, “Well I don’t go with the religious nuts.” it’s easy for a rich gay business owner to be conservative.

    Oh da4, a lot of conservatives who condemn pron also consume it. They may make a big stink about how bad it is, but everyone knows they’re not going to let anything happen to their precious porn files. I can also see a rationalization of, “Well looking at it doesn’t mean I want to do it.” being used to justify having gay porn but denying being gay in the black & white world of conservative sexuality.

  8. parasiteboy says

    Grenell says. “Tolerance means you are OK with people thinking differently than you do. Sadly, liberal intolerance is on the rise.”

    So being intolerant of intolerance makes you as bad as the original person who is intolerant? Just like you are bigoted if you disagree with a bigot?

    When this is stated by the intolerant/bigoted person or like minded defenders (which I would exclude Grenell in this case since he is openly gay) it’s the Pee-Wee Herman Defense “I know you are but what am I”

    With that said I am at a bit of a loss to get out of this circular argument. One thing that I can think of is that the bigoted and intolerant usually want to refuse certain rights to the people that are the focus of their intolerance and bigotry.

    Does anyone else have any useful responses to “your being intolerant of someone’s intolerance” or “your bigoted against the bigot”?

  9. mobius says

    Once again we see the conflation of criticism with being anti-free-speech.

    Because denying me the right to criticize something is denying me my rights of free speech.

  10. regexp says

    Wait, the owner of the largest gay porn company is a conservative? Wow. Seriously, that’s like being a Jewish Nazi

    Really? I expect better from you Ed.

    Michael Lucas is from Russia and is actually Jewish. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that he leans conservative. And most gay business owners I know would identify as Republicans if the party didn’t jump off the deep end on social issues.

    In the words of Jon Stewart:

    Please stop calling people “Hitler” when you disagree with them. It demeans you, it demeans your opponent, and, to be honest, it demeans Hitler. That guy worked too many years, too hard, to be that evil, to have any Tom, Dick, and Harry come along and say, “hey, you’re bein’ Hitler.” No, you know who was Hitler? Hitler!

  11. Michael Heath says

    chiroptera writes:

    I’m guessing that he makes enough money that he’s shielded from most of the day-to-day ugliness that gays, women, and minorities have to face while he stands to benefit even more from conservative fiscal policies.

    This is a very popular position amongst conservatives, see Mitt Romney and of course Rush Limbaugh for two exemplary proponents. However conservatives’ contrived set of premises used to take this position is narrowly defective; that reveals the idiocy of conservatives on economic matters, even those who are successful in business. So I think when we non-conservatives raise this subject, we should also point out the idiocy of their position even when it comes to their own greedy self-interests.

    Here’s how: Conservatives argue for policies that increase the wealth of the wealthiest segment of the population at the expense of everyone else. They want the wealthiest to enjoy a bigger piece of the pie, where “they” are ironically – predominately not rich (most evangelicals and fundies). The problem with this perspective is that the size of the pie is also a variable – something they almost always miss where they wrongly assume it’s a static number. Conservative policies actually decrease the size of the pie.

    So when conservatives are faced with a choice:
    a) maximize their wealth which while improving everyone’s lot in life due to achieving optimal growth economic rates or,
    b) give themselves a bigger piece of the pie though smaller than “a”, which fucks everyone else;
    conservatives now almost always choose “b” (our conservative MI gov. Rick Snyder is a rare exception, I’m comfortable saying this is now always true at the federal level).

    What’s frustrating for me in this scenario is that when I argue for policies not popular with liberals, a frequent response is often accompanied with how they think that policy would make the rich richer. A mirror image of conservative idiocy though the share of liberals are advocate for this are relatively small and powerless. I wish I could provide examples of this but unfortunately, all the comment threads of Ed’s blog have been deleted as best as I can tell. If those comment threads ever come back those discussions revolved around implementing a VAT and consumption tax, implemented in a such a way that it would not be punitive to the poor (rebates) or regressive to the working class relative to the rich (variable VAT rates for certain types of goods).

  12. John Pieret says

    parasiteboy @ 10:

    With that said I am at a bit of a loss to get out of this circular argument. One thing that I can think of is that the bigoted and intolerant usually want to refuse certain rights to the people that are the focus of their intolerance and bigotry.

    The correct form to the wingnut is my rational argument or eternal belief, your error, their bigoted and intolerant refusal to accept my rational argument or eternal belief.

    Does anyone else have any useful responses to “your being intolerant of someone’s intolerance” or “your bigoted against the bigot”?

    Any such response is linguistically impossible for wingnuts to understand. Grenell and his ilk probably understand it all too well, given how they are treated by their purported “allies.” They just have different (hardly “bigger”) fish to fry.

  13. Matt G says

    The highest per capita consumption of internet porn in the US is in the Bible Belt. You have to SAY you’re against it; you don’t have to actually BE against it.

  14. Thumper: Token Breeder says

    Wait, the owner of the largest gay porn company is a conservative?

    I’m guessing he’s a fiscal conservative.

  15. Canadian Yankee says

    Wait, the owner of the largest gay porn company is a conservative?

    I’m guessing he’s a fiscal conservative.

    That’s part of it, but he’s also super-duper pro-Israel. He’s even made porn films featuring all Israeli “actors” complete with pro-Zionist political discussions in between the sex scenes.

Leave a Reply