DURING
THE
2004
election,
the
Internet
became
a
potent
force
in
political
activism.
Fund-raising,
grassroots
organizing,
advertising
and
communication
could
all
be
done
with
a
mouse
click
at
a
small
fraction
of
the
cost
of
television
spots,
direct
mail
and
phone
banks.
One
of
the
greatest
technological
advances
in
the
history
of
civilization
enabled
anyone
with
a
laptop
and
a
DSL
connection
to
become
part
of
the
process
to
decide
the
future
of
America.
But
some
gay
activists
have
been
exploiting
this
new
medium
to
advance
a
political
agenda
that
doesn’t
reflect
gay
people
in
general.
Instead
of
focusing
on
the
key
issues
that
affect
the
lives
of
men
and
women
throughout
the
United
States,
they
appear
bent
on
tearing
down
the
Bush
administration
no
matter
the
damage
to
the
country
as
a
result.
While
disagreements
about
foreign
or
domestic
policy
should
be
part
of
a
vibrant
democracy,
actively
working
to
topple
the
government,
particularly
during
a
time
of
war
is
irrational
considering
the
threat
faced
by
global
terrorism.
The
tone
of
some
gay
activist
sites
—
led
by
John
Aravosis’
AmericaBlog
and
mimicked
by
others
—
is
so
vitriolic
concerning
every
aspect
of
the
current
government
that
there
is
no
room
to
express
outrage
at
a
particularly
heinous
event.
EARLIER
THIS
MONTH,
photographs
made
their
way
into
cyberspace
showing
two
Iranian
youths
being
hanged
for
“committing
the
crime
of
homosexuality.”
That
story
caused
barely
a
ripple,
but
at
the
same
time
these
activists
waged
a
full-blown
fax
and
telephone
campaign
against
a
town
in
Latvia
that
refused
to
issue
a
parade
permit
to
a
gay
group.
But
in
the
larger
context,
neither
incident
interrupted
the
incessant
anti-Bush
drumbeat.
Similarly,
these
activists
make
much
about
photographs
of
prisoner
abuse
at
Abu
Ghraib,
but
remain
silent
while
humanitarian
workers
are
murdered.
The
aim
is
to
focus
on
incidents
that
may
sap
the
will
of
the
American
people
to
remain
on
the
front
lines
in
the
war
on
terror.
But
it
doesn’t
have
as
much
impact
on
the
Pentagon
as
it
does
the
men
and
women
in
harm’s
way.
Either
way,
undermining
support
for
the
war
in
Iraq
gives
aid
and
comfort
to
those
who
have
no
regard
for
life,
liberty
or
diversity.
Losing
this
battle
in
the
war
on
terror
won’t
bode
well
for
anyone
in
the
United
States.
THE
WEB
SITES
of
these
activists
have
become
populated
with
extreme
elements
who
seek
to
compromise
America’s
security
and
cripple
its
economy.
Intelligent
debate
over
issues
and
strategies
is
crushed
by
expressions
of
blind
rage
and
conspiracy
theories.
With
rhetoric
so
shrill,
all
but
the
most
partisan
readers
are
repelled.
The
operators
of
these
sites
and
the
opinions
expressed
therein
are
often
represented
to
the
rest
of
America
as
the
core
constituency
of
the
gay
community.
Only
a
few
degrees
of
separation
exist
between
these
activists
and
some
dangerously
radical
groups.
Clinking
just
a
few
links
will
transport
one
to
the
Web
sites
of
International
ANSWER,
Code
Pink,
United
for
Peace
and
Justice
or
Queers
for
Peace.
All
of
these
“antiwar”
groups
are
part
of
a
global
anti-American
movement
that
supports
totalitarian
regimes
like
Cuba
and
North
Korea.
History
has
shown
how
well
despots
treat
gay
members
of
society.
The
gay
community
runs
the
risk
of
being
marginalized
by
these
associations
and
with
it
any
hope
of
advancing
its
broader
agenda.
It
is
already
being
taken
for
granted
by
one
political
party,
some
of
whose
members
are
blaming
gay
issues
for
losses
in
last
year’s
elections.
Hatred
won’t
produce
victory
at
the
polls
and
social
change
will
only
come
by
winning
hearts
and
minds.
It
certainly
can’t
be
achieved
by
aligning
with
forces
that
threaten
the
security
and
survival
of
the
United
States.
