Andrew Sullivan's argument that the gay rights movement has been, in a sense, of a platonic ideal of conservatism, is an interesting one.
the basic argument for gay equality these past two decades has not been "left". It's been a classic integrationist argument: let us serve openly in the military; let us embrace the responsibility of family; leave us alone. In some ways, as I have quixotically been arguing for too long, the gay movement since the 1980s has been pretty conservative. (And Kinsley got me to write the first serious conservative argument for gay marriage back in 1989.) For example: Can you think what people would call a mobilization of African-Americans to tackle HIV without government assistance - a mobilization that helped arrest the HIV epidemic in a matter of years? They'd call it a paragon of self-help and individual responsibility. But we're gay, and so we don't qualify for conservative support, help, or encouragement, let alone what we deserve, which is admiration and respect.
More than anything else, this demonstrates how weak the philosophical lines in American politics are. I've never met a liberal who is against self-help. Indeed, one of the main liberal arguments for an expansive safety net is that it confers a baseline level of security that, in turn, increases individual autonomy. I think of universal health care as being the most pro-entrepreneurial policy currently on offer.
But then, the political parties are largely collections of interest groups -- some rent-seeking, some ideological -- which come together and compromise on a program they can agree on. Conservatives are in coalition with the Christian Right, and so sexual equality is not on the agenda. Liberals are in coalition with more marginalized groups, including gay-rights groups, and so equality is closer to the platform, if not quite there yet. In both cases, the philosophies are, I fear, relatively beside the point. One could easily imagine a left win that's closer to the Dobbsian/Christian Democrat compromise of social conservatism with economic progressivism.
