A “Conservative” Magazine for Gay “Civil Rights?”

Ugh! If you thought The American Conservative hit rock bottom when they published an article by Jon Huntsman arguing that gay “marriage” is a conservative cause, you would be wrong. Now they have published an article by David Lampo, a board member of the Log Cabin Republicans, arguing for gay “civil rights.”

Huntsman’s premise, gay “marriage” as a conservative cause, was absurd on its face, but at least Huntsman’s logic was tortured and circuitous essentially conceding the difficulty of his case. By comparison, Lampro’s screed is just straight forward gay rights advocacy. He even calls his opponents “homophobic.” What kind of a PC tool job do you have to be to use the word “homophobia” as if it is a serious term?

Whatever anyone thinks of gay civil rights, this article has no place at a supposedly conservative magazine, especially one that was founded by Pat Buchanan as a continuing voice of his campaign. It reads more like something some undergrad in a gay studies course would write to impress his professor. He even drops an “Institutional homophobia?” I kid you not. What’s next? A TAC article on white privileged?

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

15 thoughts on “A “Conservative” Magazine for Gay “Civil Rights?”

  1. William

    After Obama’s re-election, Scott McConnell published an article (entitled, if I remember correctly, “Immigrants for Peace”) arguing that mass immigration from Latin America was actually a rather good thing. Hispanics, after all, tend to vote for the Democratic party, whose foreign policy is somewhat less belligerent than the Republicans’. It was rather bracing to see a former contributor to VDare arguing that we needed to elect a new people.

    TAC, a magazine for which so many of us had such high hopes, has fallen prey to that most America of vices — the desire to appear respectable. It’s hardly surprising. The writing was on the wall when it published that shameful obituary of Sobran.

  2. Matt Weber

    Well TAC isn’t trying to rally the troops. I’ve no idea what they think conservative means, but in the end they just like to be different.

    This one was pretty lame though. I like where he complains that homosexuals could lose their jobs in the past for being open about it. Well sure, and these days you can lose your job because you said nigger back in the 80s. Does Mr Lampo give a crap about that nonsense?

  3. RonL

    TAC runs communists, ran people endorsing Kerry and Obama.
    Their only shibboleths are proclaimed isolationism and obsequiousness to Islam.

  4. HarrisonBergeron2

    RedPhillips,

    I’ll post something on immigration or Obama, and I’ll get ads urging readers to call their congressman to demand “comprehensive immigration reform” or to pass Obama Care.

    If Google had any brains, they’d tailor advertising to the audience.

  5. thaddeus

    As I said before, the philosemitic-only comments policy at TAC clearly identifies what a useless rag it is. It is a sham, not even “conservative” by the pathetic definition of conservatism that prevails today.

    It’s just another organ of the progressive Synagogue, like all the rest.

  6. Augustinian

    I’m glad my subscription runs out soon. I was a charter subscriber and loved the print TAC for several years. When Pat and Taki jumped off, its decline started. Occasionally it’ll have some worthwhile reading, but not enough for continued support. Ugh indeed …

  7. Matt Weber

    In TAC’s defense, if they have someone wanting to argue that gay marriage or whatever other thing is conservative, then why not run it? Sometimes I think we take these things too seriously. TAC, to their credit, has taken a consistent line against the ghettoization of the media such that people never read anything they might disagree with. Maybe they go overboard sometimes in combatting this, but at least they are trying.

  8. James

    At this point, though, I think TAC would do far more to combat the ghettoization of the media by publishing a piece against homosexual marriage. I can’t think of the last non-Dreher article they’ve put out that didn’t argue for homosexual marriage either explicitly, or implicitly by mixing repeated pronouncements of its inevitability with insults directed at the stupid proles who continue to oppose it and leaving you to figure out the rest.

    It’s gotten to the point that I’m pretty sure most of their readers are either libertarians or center-leftists who still think that any criticism of Obama, however mild, is beyond the pale. This isn’t to say that dialogue with lefties is always a bad thing, but at least get some interesting ones.

    Anyway, I agree that there is probably little point in people continuing to complain about these things.

  9. C Bowen/Hawthorne

    William;

    McConnell was expressing (perhaps/likely unintentionally) the view of the Anglo and European Hard Right towards the ‘fate’ of American demographics.

  10. C Bowen/Hawthorne

    thaddeus;

    2007. Taki wanted to go on-line and run his own site (he hired Richard Spencer.) It was actually a fun site that moved many “bulletin board” posters to the e-zine/blog format. It killed the forums, but it was an interesting exercise.

    Of course we screwed that up promptly, Richard was let go, and a new trendy hipster site emerged–which isn’t all bad or anything, but there were some good times on the original site–good debates and mud slinging from different corners in the comments, and columns from the various dissidents.

  11. Sempronius

    thaddeus on 09 Jul 2013 at 5:17 pm #

    Why DID Pat and Taki abandon this magazine?

    Two words Thad: Beautiful losers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>