Despite differences, gays and conservatives can agree on some issues

LGBT community members and traditionally religious people spend so much time fighting with each other that they never seem to notice there are several substantive issues on which they can work together.

As a person who fits both categories, I’m perhaps uniquely qualified to help set an agenda for cooperation by such strange (queer?) bedfellows.

The following are five substantive policy areas around which people on both sides of the gay-rights divide could forge common bonds and create positive change in our society.

• Blood policy: The Food and Drug Administration refuses to allow men who have had sex with men since 1977 to donate blood — including if they have been HIV-negative or even celibate for more than a decade.

This policy was reasonable in the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when little was known about the disease. Today, however, it needlessly stigmatizes “ex-gay” as well as gay men, serves no health-safety purpose and is reckless in a time when the blood supply is low.

I have even been rejected for tissue typing to see if my bone marrow could save a particular Jewish woman with leukemia. I said, “What if I’m a match? Shouldn’t we find out, and then let her decide whether to take the risk of letting my HIV-negative but lavender bone marrow save her life?”

I was turned away.

• Adoption: Gay parents and religious conservatives are unlikely to agree on state policies like Florida’s, which ban gay adoption, or Massachusetts’ that bar agencies from giving preference to families with both a mother and a father.

But in those jurisdictions which do allow gay adoption, traditionally religous people have a joint interest with gay and lesbian parents to foster government policies (like tax credits) that benefit families that adopt.

The more adoptions, the fewer abortions, so traditional people can push for pro-adoption legislation alongside those of us who disagree with them about the fitness of gays to be adoptive parents.

• Abortion. While most (but not all) LGBT people are pro-choice, and most (but not all) traditionally religious people are pro-life, all can agree that aborting a fetus because it is likely to become gay is a horribly immoral act.

I’m dubious, but some scientists predict it will eventually become possible to determine the future sexuality of babies in the womb. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, people on both sides of the homosexuality debate can band together to pass a federal law outlawing abortion based on sexual orientation.

• Prison rape. Appallingly, prison rape is not only common in our penal system, but it is a de facto method of controlling the incarcerated population. Gay and bisexual men, and transgender women are the most common victims of prison rape, but many straight men, including some religious Christians, are violated as well.

Gays and their one-time enemies could band together to pressure the government to take strong measures to start treating prison rape as the horrific crime it is, rather than an “amusing” side-effect of incarceration. While LGBT people and traditionally religious people are unlikely to agree on the morality of gay sex, we can certainly all agree on the immorality of forced gay sex.

The gay community should be embarrassed that conservative Christians have put much more energy into fighting prison rape than LGBT people have. In fact, since the 1999 demise of the Bromfield Street Educational Foundation, no gay organization had devoted more than a pittance of energy to prison issues.

• Support for the troops: One of the main reasons given for excluding gay people from open service in the military is that servicemembers’ prejudices would likely undermine morale, unit cohesion and combat readiness. So it would be wonderful if LGBT people, along with traditionally religious people who already consider our troops to be heroes, began to volunteer for USOs and to support policies that enhance military pay and benefits.

The more our servicemembers and their officers begin to see LGBT people for the well-rounded, brave, and patriotic people we are, the sooner the powers that be will decide the conditions are ripe to overturn “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

A similar change of attitude about the Boy Scouts could reap rewards. If gay and lesbian people began cooperating with traditionally religious people in supporting and promoting the virtues of Scouting, as opposed to booing innocent young Scouts like they did at the 2000 Democratic National Convention, the Boy Scouts of America might come to realize that LGBT people share their values of honor, loyalty, trust and reverence after all.

Working together on the above issues is unlikely to make a Southern Baptist hope for a lesbian daughter, or to make a gay man become “born again.” But by cooperating on important policy areas we’re all invested in, perhaps we can stop seeing each other as the “enemy.”

Then, down the road, when discussing the definition of marriage or non-discrimination laws, we will be better able to listen to each other and try to find some common ground.

David Benkof was a longtime gay columnist, historian, and entrepreneur (as David Bianco). He is openly bisexual, but as an Orthodox Jew he is guided by Jewish law in the areas of sexuality and family life. He blogs at GaysDefendMarriage.com.



This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition June 13, 2008.