Mark Fiore: Gay rights conservative? No longer an oxymoron

Dialogue rarely seen at Penn has taken hold on campus this semester. From panel discussions and speeches to classrooms and online message boards, Penn students have debated such hot topics as same-sex marriage, domestic partnership benefits and "ex-gay" movements.

Many of the exchanges have been constructive and illuminating, while others have proven ignorant and unsophisticated. Common among many of the arguments, however, has been the assumption that conservative beliefs entirely correlate with anti-gay positions.

That premise may have been true in decades past -- but its foundation is quickly eroding today. Many Americans, conservative and liberal, gay and straight, have come to realize that gay individuals deserve much of the same equality, respect and rights as other citizens.

The issue need not be a political one -- indeed, tolerance and diversity is a human concern. Nonetheless, because certain gay rights, and gay individuals themselves, have yet to be universally accepted, politics still envelop the issue.

The politics of homosexuality, however, are irrefutably changing. In order to make further progress, conservatives and liberals alike must realize such shifts. Only then -- when gay rights is viewed as a humanitarian issue, not a political issue -- will discussion break free of its bonds.

Not everyone will agree to abide by such a shift, nor should they be forced to agree. But current evidence demonstrates that the shift is well under way.

Consider, for example, that one in four gay Americans reportedly voted for President Bush in the 2000 election. In far greater support than ever before shown to a Republican presidential candidate, many gay voters showed up at the polls not to vote for the Democratic opponent, as was once expected, but to vote against him.

Indeed, liberal politicians have for too long taken gays and lesbians for granted, automatically assuming and expecting their vote. Those days, however, seem to be over.

Perhaps gay Americans have realized that Democratic politicians do not necessarily represent their best interests. After all, it was a Democratic president who signed two recent federal policies that have proved most harmful for gays and lesbians.

During his tenure, President Bill Clinton put into law the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, under which military personnel are discharged when they reveal their homosexuality. Clinton also signed the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the conception that marriage is between a man and a woman only.

Such observations do not necessarily mean that Republican presidents would have acted differently. To be sure, President Ronald Reagan has faced criticism for not acting quickly enough to stop the onslaught of AIDS.

And just this summer, President Bush raised the ire of homosexuals by declining to proclaim June as Gay Pride Month, a declaration Clinton had made during his tenure. In basing his decision on his expressed desire not to politicize individuals' sexual orientation, President Bush did just that.

Yet in other areas, especially with political appointments, the president has proven that the interplay between political ideology and sexual orientation has become more complex. Last spring, Bush announced that Scott Evertz would head the White House Office on National AIDS Policy -- becoming the nation's first openly gay White House AIDS czar. The president followed that appointment with his decision to maintain the Presidential Advisory Council on AIDS/HIV, rather than disband it under a reorganization.

More recently, the president appointed Michael Guest, an openly gay foreign service officer, to be ambassador to Romania. Secretary of State Colin Powell presided over Guest's swearing-in, which was also attended by Guest's partner.

What is especially significant about these appointments is that they were made not because of either official's sexual orientation. Rather, the appointments were made on the basis of individual merit.

Contrast that action with the Clinton's unsuccessful effort to appoint James Hormel ambassador to Luxembourg. Lacking any relevant experience, Hormel was appointed primarily because he was gay -- and for that, his nomination rightly failed.

Other instances abound to disprove the assumption that conservative beliefs contravene acceptance of gay Americans. This fall, for example, Congress -- which includes openly gay Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe -- voted to lift the ban on domestic partnerships for gay couples in Washington, D.C. Forty-one Republicans joined Democrats in support of the measure.

Also in Congress, Republican Sen. Gordon Smith takes time each week to read into the record instances of hate crimes in an effort to see federal hate crimes legislation extended to cover sexual orientation.

Of course, not all conservative politicians and citizens share Smith's beliefs. Conservative senators like Jesse Helms and Trent Lott have vocally expressed their condemnation on issues of sexual orientation. Such conservative organizations as the Family Research Council have been equally critical.

Nonetheless, the Helmses and Lotts of the nation are being replaced by the Smiths. Even at Penn, the College Republicans have yet to agree on a stance on same-sex marriage.

On both the national stage and on Penn's campus, the assumption equating conservative philosophy with anti-gay sentiments is crumbling.

Mark Fiore is a third-year Law School student and a 1999 College graduate from Spring Park, Minn.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.