I recently read Barry Goldwater's book The Conscience of a Conservative, which was published in 1960, four years before he ran for president. I enjoyed it very much (if for no other reason than that it's well written) and agree with Goldwater on many things. Late in his life, he became somewhat of a homosexual lover. I don't mean that he himself was a homosexual or engaged in homosexual sex; I mean that he sympathized with, supported, and defended homosexuals. I think he had a homosexual grandchild, which may have influenced him. In any event, I tracked down an op-ed column that he published in the Washington Post in 1994, when he was 85 years old. It's entitled "Job Protection for Gays." I reproduce it below, together with comments after each paragraph. Goldwater's words are indented.
Last year, many who opposed lifting the ban on gays in the military gave lip service to the American ideal that employment opportunities should be based on skill and performance. It’s just that the military is different, they said. In civilian life, they’d never condone discrimination.
The American military is not an "employment opportunity."
Well, now’s their chance to put up or shut up.
Goldwater didn't mince words.
A bipartisan coalition in Congress has proposed legislation to protect gays against job discrimination. Congress is waking up to a reality already recognized by a host of Fortune 500 companies, including AT&T, Marriott and General Motors. These businesses have adopted policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation because they realize that their employees are their most important asset.
By what constitutional authority does Congress "protect" people "against job discrimination"? This goes against everything Goldwater once stood for. (He voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not because he was a racist but because he was a constitutionalist.)
America is now engaged in a battle to reduce the deficit and to compete in a global economy. Job discrimination excludes qualified individuals, lowers workforce productivity and eventually hurts us all. Topping the new world order means attracting the best and creating a workplace environment where everyone can excel. Anything less makes us a second rate nation. It’s not just bad—it’s bad business.
If homosexuals are as good as Goldwater says they are, then no rational employer would exclude them. So why the need for legislation? Is irrationality pervasive? Maybe it is, but I want to see evidence to that effect. I suspect that the overwhelming majority of employers don't give a damn about what their employees do in their bedrooms, as long as they do their jobs.
But job discrimination against gays and lesbians is real, and it happens every day. Cracker Barrel, a national restaurant chain, adopted a policy of blatant discrimination against employees suspected of being gay. Would anyone tolerate policies prohibiting the hiring of African Americans, Hispanics or women?
People can associate with anyone they please, for whatever reason they please. Why is employment any different? Goldwater never explains this.
Today, in corporate suites and factory warehouses, qualified people live in fear of losing their livelihood for reasons that have nothing to do with ability. In urban and rural communities, hatred and fear force good people from productive employment to the public dole—wasting their talents and the taxpayers’ money.
Wait! I thought it was a matter of principle. Is Goldwater now suggesting that discrimination against homosexuals is wrong because it's inefficient or wasteful?
Gays and lesbians are a part of every American family. They should not be shortchanged in their efforts to better their lives and serve their communities. As President Clinton likes to say, “if you work hard and play by the rules, you’ll be rewarded” and not with a pink slip just for being gay.
When you say obviously false things such as "Gays and lesbians are a part of every American family," you undermine your credibility. What in the world is he talking about? Homosexuals constitute no more than 5% of the population, and probably less. If the average family consists of four individuals, then one family in every five contains a homosexual. That's a far cry from "every family."
It’s time America realized that there was no gay exemption in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence. Job discrimination against gays—or anybody else—is contrary to each of these founding principles.
Excuse me, but who is depriving homosexuals of their lives or liberty? If homosexuals were being put to death or imprisoned, merely for being homosexual, these words of the Declaration of Independence would apply; but neither of those things is happening. Goldwater is playing fast and loose with the truth and disrespecting the plain words of one of our founding documents.
Some will try to paint this as a liberal or religious issue. I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please, as long as they don’t hurt anyone else in the process. No one has ever shown me how being gay or lesbian harms anyone else. Even the 1992 Republican platform affirms the principle that “bigotry has no place in our society.”
What does democracy have to do with this issue? And why does Goldwater drag religion into the picture? This is bizarre! Goldwater had a strange antipathy toward religion. I have no idea why, or where it came from. Notice, too, the accusation of bigotry. Is Goldwater a bigot because he didn't marry a black woman?
I am proud that the Republican Party has always stood for individual rights and liberties. The positive role of limited government has always been the defense of these fundamental principles. Our party has led the way in the fight for freedom and a free market economy, a society where competition and the Constitution matter—and sexual orientation shouldn’t.
Limited government sets limits to what government may do. It is negative. It does not empower government to act for any purpose it deems worthy. Goldwater devoted his life to this principle, and now, inexplicably, he abandons it. Where does government get the right to force people to associate with those they prefer to remain apart from? And what if one believes, on religious or moral grounds, that homosexuality is a disordered condition or a perversity? Why must one be forced to set these beliefs aside? I thought extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
Now some in our ranks want to extinguish this torch. The radical right has nearly ruined our party. Its members do not care enough about the Constitution, and they are the ones making all the noise. The party faithful must not let it happen. Anybody who cares about real moral values understands that this isn’t about granting special rights—it’s about protecting basic rights.
Note the disparaging term "radical right." Coming from Goldwater, whose radicalism led to his electoral demolition in 1964, this is laughable. I can only surmise that he got tired of being on the fringe of the ideological spectrum and thought it might be nice (for a change) to have someone to the right of him. As for caring about the Constitution, Goldwater never explained where in the Constitution Congress is empowered to force employers to hire people against their will. So much for liberty and limited government!
It is for this reason that more than 100 mayors and governors, Republicans and Democrats, have signed laws and issued orders protecting gays and lesbians. In fact, nearly half the states have provided some form of protection to gays in employment. But of course many others have not, including my own state of Arizona.
If everybody is doing it, that makes it right (and constitutional). This is pathetic!
It’s not going to be easy getting Congress to provide job protection for gays. I know that firsthand. The right wing will rant and rave that the sky is falling. They’ve said that before—and we’re still here. Constitutional conservatives know that doing the right thing takes guts and foresight, but that’s why we’re elected, to make tough decisions that stand the test of time.
What's next, job protection for felons? For people with tattooed bodies and pierced faces? For people with hideous diseases? For people who refuse to wear clothing? Surely, these people are able to do the job at hand, in which case, by Goldwater's logic, they're entitled to the job. Logically speaking, this paragraph is a piece of mush. It's hard to find fault with it because, well, it says nothing.
My former colleagues have a chance to stand with civil rights leaders, the business community and the 74 percent of Americans who polls show favor protecting gays and lesbians from job discrimination. With their vote they can help strengthen the American work ethic and support the principles of the Constitution.
The American work ethic? Seriously? What about the American ethic of doing as you please, provided you're not harming anyone else? This op-ed column is disgraceful in its dishonesty and belligerence. We know that Goldwater didn't write The Conscience of a Conservative (though it was supposedly based on many of his speeches). I'm inclined to think that someone wrote these words for him, based on a passing comment he may have made about how hard it was for his homosexual grandchild to find a job. The op-ed column is so poorly reasoned, and so emphatically at odds with what Goldwater believed for most of his long life, that it makes one wonder what's going on.
