The Republic of T. Archives

We live in interesting times. Chris, of Law Dork, takes issue with this article in the New York Times about the marriage of a top republican consultant to another man, and so does Anthony Rickey. The article was was originally titled “GOP Consultant’s Marriage is a Gay One,” but has apparently been changed to “GOP Consultant Weds His Male Partner.”

As I’ve written several times here in support of the work of blogActive and others, I kind of feel the need to say something here.

Arthur J. Finkelstein, a prominent Republican consultant who has directed a series of hard-edged political campaigns to elect conservatives in the United States and Israel over the last 25 years, said Friday that he had married his male partner in a civil ceremony at his home in Massachusetts.

Mr. Finkelstein, 59, who has made a practice of defeating Democrats by trying to demonize them as liberal, said in a brief interview that he had married his partner of 40 years to ensure that the couple had the same benefits available to married heterosexual couples.

…Some of Mr. Finkelstein’s associates said they were startled to learn that this prominent American conservative had married a man, given his history with the party, especially at a time when many Republican leaders, including President Bush, have campaigned against same-sex marriage and proposed amending the Constitution to ban it. Mr. Finkelstein has been allied over the years with Republicans who have fiercely opposed gay rights measures, including former Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, and has been the subject of attacks by gay rights activists who have accused him of hypocrisy. He was identified as gay in a Boston Magazine article in 1996.

Chris asks why this is a story, and it’s a legitimate question, given that Finkelstein—whom I’d never heard of until now—was “outed” in print back in 1996. Somehow I missed that bit of news. Chris also points out that Finkelstein’s clients have included moderate Republicans like Pataki, who signed New York’s employment non-discrimination bill, and Alfonse D’Amato, who was once endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign.

Still Finkelststein has also been allied in the past with one of the most vociferously anti-gay politicians in congressional history: Jesse Helms.

Mr. Finkelstein has frequently come under criticism by gay rights groups for representing politicians who have been ardent foes of gay rights. He helped create the template for a line of attack he repeatedly invoked against Democrats, including Mario M. Cuomo of New York, describing them as liberal.

…”In recent years, Arthur hasn’t pretended to be a social conservative,” said one longtime conservative associate, who cited Mr. Finkelstein’s aversion to publicity in declining to be identified. “But this is the same man who was the architect of Jesse Helms’s political rise.”

I guess it’s phrases like “the architect of Jesse Helm’s political rise” that give me pause here. Given the amount of trouble Jesse Helms made or tried to may for gay Americans during his time in congress, it’s news to me that a gay man was responsible—to some degree—for Helms voice and vote being such a force against gay and lesbian equality. Is that something our community should know about? Is it balanced out by supporting “moderates” like Pataki and D’Amato?

It’s also odd to me to read about Finkelstein’s support of Helms and at the same time read that he has “hasn’t pretended to be a social conservatives” in recent years. I’m guessing that’s after he finished being the “architect of the Jesse Helm’s political rise,” Helm’s perhaps being the prototypical social conservative. Meanwhile, Finkelstein is described (by associates and others, who would only speak off the record) as more libertarian, and thinking that the party should be more libertarian than social conservative. After working for Helms, did Finkelstein have some kind of change of heart that somehow got left out of the story?

I guess the question here is when gay people work as politial operatives for politicians who openly advocate and vote against equality for us and our families, is that something we should know about? Is it something we should do something about? And if so, what? What’s more, when there are gay people working for politicians who advocate and vote against equality for us and our families, do we still protect their privacy?

To put it another way, if the enemy of my enemy is my friend, is the friend of my enemy my enemy, even if he’s gay?

As I see it, it’s not just Finkelstein’s sexuality that’s the point of the story. It’s the contradiction of having worked for people who would deny him the very rights and protections he got married in order to have access to.

Mr. Finkelstein, 59, who has made a practice of defeating Democrats by trying to demonize them as liberal, said in a brief interview that he had married his partner of 40 years to ensure that the couple had the same benefits available to married heterosexual couples [emphasis added].

Here we have a gay man who, while having a male partner of 40 years, worked for people who would make gay people second-class citizens, or less, if they had they’re way. And he was working on getting them their way by getting them into power. It’s the contradiction that’s news. Yes, it’s a contradiction between his politics and his orientation, but also having worked for some publicly anti-gay people while trying to remain a “private” man. “Private” here being another word for closeted; assuming that had he not been outed in 1996 that Finkelstein would hav remained a “privately” gay man who publicly worked for some anti-gay politicians, including one of the biggest.

Chris wraps up with this.

After decades of fighting in the courts by LGBT activists to keep police from knocking down their bedroom doors, people like Rogers and Aravosis — and now Nagourney — have succeeded in letting all of America in through the window.

From my perspective, Rogers, Aravosis, and Nagourney didn’t open up the window. Finkelstein, Schrock, and others like them opened those windows themselves. Rogers, Aravosis and others are merely pointing out the open window.

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 9th, 2005 at 8:56 am and is filed under Current Events, Gay Rights, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.