On-Topic New book -- "Why Conservatives should support Gay Rights"

[JayQueer]

I just noticed on Amazon.com that there is a brand new book published this month called A Fundamental Freedom: Why Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians should support Gay Rights.

The book is written by David Lampo, a gay libertarian who is vice president of the Log Cabin Republican Club of Virginia. Mr. Lampo is director of publications at the Cato Institute as well.

It's a hardcover book, and it's 216 pages. It looks like an interesting read -- even for liberals.

Amazon.com: A Fundamental Freedom: Why Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians Should Support Gay Rights (9781442215719): David Lampo: Books

The synopsis of the book (from Amazon):

It is an axiom of modern American politics that many Republicans and most conservatives are not only anti-gay but that they have capitulated to an anti-gay agenda formulated and pursued by the religious right for the past several decades. In A Fundamental Freedom, David Lampo makes the case that support for gay rights will provide long-term political benefits for the GOP and the conservative movement. He argues that an anti-gay agenda succinctly exposes the hypocrisy of those who talk of limited government and individual rights but ignore both when it comes to gay rights and other personal freedom issues. Indeed, it is the defenders of gay rights within Republican ranks who are keeping faith with core conservative principles. He also presents a variety of polling data that show that rank-and-file Republicans, including many Tea Party supporters, are far more supportive of gay rights than commonly presumed. Lampo’s call to embrace gay rights is sure to be hotly debated within the conservative movement.

Has anyone read this book yet? I'm thinking about ordering it off Amazon and reading it.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

It looks like an interesting read -- even for liberals.

LIBERALS aren't the ones you have to convince!

They already know all this stuff anyway. Who is this book written for? Does he really think he's going to change hearts and minds within the Republican party of today? Fat chance.

 

[JayQueer]

LIBERALS aren't the ones you have to convince!

They already know all this stuff anyway. Who is this book written for? Does he really think he's going to change hearts and minds within the Republican party of today? Fat chance.

I think it's useful for liberals to know how to "speak Republican" if they want convince conservative people on the fence, to support gay rights & same-sex marriage.

Some of us have family members, neighbors, etc. who are very conservative. Knowing how to discuss & advocate for gay rights issues, such as same-sex marriage, using conservative arguments may be helpful to win support from more politically conservative people.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

Some of us have family members, neighbors, etc. who are very conservative. Knowing how to discuss & advocate for gay rights issues, such as same-sex marriage, using conservative arguments may be helpful to win support from more politically conservative people.

Well good, then I wish you the best with it. Read the book, learn what to say and I hope you can stand up to those people you love and you can tell them what you need and it helps you to successfully advocate for yourself.

I, myself, probably won't be reading it but I honestly hope it gives you a basis to work from and helps you change the hearts and minds of those in your life

 

[opinterph]

David Lampo

I’m having trouble finding this guy’s bio/credentials. Can you provide a link?

 

[JayQueer]

I’m having trouble finding this guy’s bio/credentials. Can you provide a link?

There was a brief paragraph about David Lampo on that Amazon listing.

But I also found a recent article about him from the Examiner:

Author David Lampo brings gay-rights message to conservative Republicans - Charlottesville Libertarian | Examiner.com

 

[opinterph]

a recent article about him from the Examiner:

[url=http://www.examiner.com/article/author-david-lampo-brings-gay-rights-message-to-conservative-republicans]Author David Lampo brings gay-rights message to conservative Republicans - Charlottesville Libertarian | Examiner.com[/url]

That looks a lot like a press release.

 

[JayQueer]

That looks a lot like a press release.

Just google "David Lampo". He's written articles for newspapers, including opinion pieces for the Washington Post.

Stop pandering, Romney: The religious right may be anti-gay, but GOP voters aren’t - The Washington Post

David Lampo | Cuccinelli is no libertarian | Augusta Free Press. The Valley. Virginia. Defined.

Here is his LinkedIn:

David Lampo | LinkedIn

 

[Rolyo85]

Well, his credentials already are in the trash with the whole LCR thing.

Either way, I don't have enough sympathy for gay Republicans to try and "speak their language". They have no language to speak because at the core, the issue with them is NOT ideological.

That said, the book might still not suck. Let us know if it's good.

 

[rareboy]

Like others, I can't imagine why it would be an interesting screed for liberals.

And we aren't the ones who need to know how to speak Republican.

But I wish this guy all the best in trying to convince the talibangelicals out there who control the politics of the right that homos pose no existential threat to them, or to the country.

 

[shastamc24]

Unfortunately I also come from an incredibly conservative, religious family. As soon as you start to argue anything, regardless of source, they will open a Bible. Any arguments, facts or even opinions are ignored. What is there to argue? It says it right here in my Bible! End of argument.

 

[White Eagle]

Have you read Corny's thread "Critical thinking? Now officially not for republicans!" There is a link to the Texas Republican Platform. Read through the part about homosexuality. I wouldn't even try to convince anyone. I would have better luck telling my cats.

 

[chrisrobin]

Have you read Corny's thread "Critical thinking? Now officially not for republicans!" There is a link to the Texas Republican Platform. Read through the part about homosexuality. I wouldn't even try to convince anyone. I would have better luck telling my cats.

I would have better luck telling my cats.

You don't have to. They already are non-judgmental - unlike Republicons.

 

[andysayshi]

Congratulations to Mr Lampo for recognising that Republicans should choose to support gay rights to "provide long-term political benefits for the GOP and the conservative movement", rather than because it is recognition of the equality of all human beings. I'm very pleased to hear that Republicans may be prepared to offer gays the right to marry, so long as there's something in it for them.

 

[Rolyo85]

Meanwhile, I saw another book that I think about buying - a collection of essays titled Why are Faggots Afraid of Other Faggots?

 

[Kulindahr]

Unfortunately I also come from an incredibly conservative, religious family. As soon as you start to argue anything, regardless of source, they will open a Bible. Any arguments, facts or even opinions are ignored. What is there to argue? It says it right here in my Bible! End of argument.

I like that kind of people. I just say, "Hang on a minute!" and get my Hebrew and Greek.

I truly love it when one of them objects that God wouldn't leave us wondering on some points, like what certain words really mean. That's a teachable moment: I flip through my Greek NT and show how much on most of the pages is taken up by the very abbreviated code showing what important variations have been found in the ancient texts, and ask, "Really?" As they struggle for an answer, I gently point out that God Himself said, "Let's reason together", which indicates He expects us to use our brains -- and the fact that He allowed the Bible to come to us marred, a bit muddled, and with things in doubt closes the case.

Though now I just might ask them to sit down and watch Matthew Vines' presentation -- he did an awesome job.

 

[Kulindahr]

Lampo's credentials are described well by his multiple associations -- Cato Institute, libertarian enthusiasm, Log Cabin attachment. It says he doesn't know whether he's more interested in principles, pragmatism, or personal position. That's borne out because he can't seem to make up his mind whether policies should be pursued because of benefit or due to beliefs, and if for benefit then whether just for his faction or for the country.

He's got enthusiasm and he's pretty sound in reasoning, but without a solid place to stand, his results are less than impressive.

 

[chrisrobin]

Lampo's credentials are described well by his multiple associations -- Cato Institute, libertarian enthusiasm, Log Cabin attachment. It says he doesn't know whether he's more interested in principles, pragmatism, or personal position. That's borne out because he can't seem to make up his mind whether policies should be pursued because of benefit or due to beliefs, and if for benefit then whether just for his faction or for the country.

He's got enthusiasm and he's pretty sound in reasoning, but without a solid place to stand, his results are less than impressive.

The nature of the book reminds me an effort to convert carnivores (lions and tigers and bears) into vegetarians. Good luck.

 

[Zingerific]

I'm a little late to this thread, but I'll go ahead and throw in my two cents.

I for one find this thread disheartening. I would consider myself pretty far to the left (I view Obama as a dangerous compromiser) and I am happy about this book for a number of reasons.

1. The right in this country is a not-too-stable alliance between libertarians, social conservatives, and Chamber of Commerce types. Any issue that has the potential to threaten the stability of this coalition I view as a good thing.

2. I'm in favor of any argument that convinces people to support gay rights.

3. We have long been in a situation where liberals can ignore gay rights because there was no where else to go. If the parties are put in a position to compete for gay votes, only good can result. This may be wishful thinking on my part, but I think it's possible in some areas of the country -- I'm thinking of Romney's pledge when running for the Senate that he'd be more pro gay rights than Ted Kennedy.

I won't be reading it either and won't be bothering with trying to convince people who refuse to be convinced and don't want to listen... and to those who think gay people deserve to go to hell. I'll pass.

And who would those people be? I think the mistake you're making is that people opposed to gay rights are irredeemable. The numbers suggest the opposite. I don't have them handy right now, but support for gay marriage is increasing far faster than demographic shifts suggest they should, which means that people are changing their minds. To simply write off people with whom you disagree is foolish in the extreme.

JayQueer, again the problem you have is social conservatives won't change their minds

That's a little too defeatist for my liking. My understanding is that the young evangelicals are far more likely to support, say, gay marriage than their older coreligionists.

And we aren't the ones who need to know how to speak Republican.

I completely disagree. In my experience, liberals are terrible at "speaking Republican." Conservatives are equally bad at "speaking Democratic." The fact of the matter is that the right and the left have fundamentally different values, and the inability to acknowledge, or even recognize, that fact render most political discussions pointless.

The odd thing is that, in my view, supporting gay marriage is a conservative position. I see marriage as a fundamentally patriarchal institution, and if I had my druthers the state would get out of the marriage business all together. I've always been uncomfortable with gay marriage because I see it as a "me too" ism, where the critical distance that being gay provides is lost. But then I'm a crazy lefty .

 

[Zingerific]

I'm not making a mistake anywhere. They won't change their minds because they put the bible over anything. Any time you try to discuss anything with social conservatives they'll always go back to the bible and say it is wrong. It's a lost cause.

First of all, there are plenty of conservatives that aren't social conservatives. The very existence of the book in question proves that point. Second, I'm not convinced that the social conservatives are as monolithic as you seem to imply. Third, the young people are usually open to persuasion regardless of their views.

No it's not. It's why my tactic is not convincing conservatives, but rather convincing people to move to the left politically.

Huh? I'm not following you here. Convincing people to more to the left, it seems, requires convincing people not on the left to begin with. Presumably moderates and conservatives. How is this different from convincing conservatives?

But anyway. Sure, convincing people to move to the left is great, I'm all in favor. But how does that happen? I haven't read any literature on the subject, but I suspect such changes in political orientation don't happen in one fell swoop. There are probably one or two "foot in the door" issues that cause initial doubts that, eventually, cause someone to doubt their entire ideological position. If gay rights constitute that foot in the door, and this book is the catalyst, great.

Read my posts a little more carefully please.

It was certainly not my intention to misconstrue your positions. But I really don't see how I have. Let me know how.