Gay Pride Parade Discriminates Against Gay Cops

Demonizing an entire profession is not the shortest path to criminal justice reform.


Many people know that New York's legendary Gay Pride Parade was launched in response to the violent 1969 police raid of a Greenwich Village gay bar called the Stonewall Inn. Less well-known is that a key organizer of that initial defiant and celebratory march was a cop.

Not at the time, mind you. Fred Sargeant was then the 20-year-old manager of his partner Craig Rodwell's Oscar Wilde Bookshop in the Village when he walked by the Stonewall melee, after which he and hundreds of others rioted in the streets for days against the heavy-handedness of the NYPD. But having helped midwife a new era of gay liberation, Sargeant soon decamped to Stamford, Connecticut, and decided to change policing culture from within.

"I wanted to see if I could make a difference, and having seen the situation at Stonewall and how the NYPD handled that, I thought I could do it differently," Sargeant later told PBS. "Stonewall wasn't the only riot I saw. I'd been caught up in riots in the Village before and watched what the police did." Sargeant would rise to the rank of lieutenant before retiring.

That gradual commingling and grudging tolerance between activist and officer is now beginning to unravel. Late last week, bending to pressure that had intensified after the May 2020 police killing of George Floyd, organizers of 2021 Pride announced a five-year ban on parade participation by uniformed police and corrections officers.

"The sense of safety that law enforcement is meant to provide can instead be threatening, and at times dangerous, to those in our community who are most often targeted with excessive force and/or without reason," NYC Pride organizers said in a statement.

"The community really called us out as an organization," Pride Co-Chair André Thomas explained to The New York Times. "Because they felt that we weren't necessarily living up to our mission, our higher ideals and standards."

Those ideals apparently now include collective guilt and racial paranoia:

[T]he changes are meant to address concerns voiced by some transgender, Black and Latino people who say they felt unsafe marching in front of a police force that routinely targeted and victimized them. […]

"The issue is, how do we make Pride safe for the people who feel the most marginalized and have often been left out of the conversations about how Pride is run?" said Beverly Tillery, the executive director of the New York City Anti-Violence Project, an L.G.B.T.Q. rights group. […]

"As the police presence at Pride has grown over the years, the members of our community who are most marginalized, who are most harmed by police, have felt like Pride is not a safe place for them."

There are several situations in which interacting with a heavy police presence could make members of a historically marginalized community feel tangibly—as opposed to rhetorically—unsafe: a massage parlor raid, a housing-project sweep, an immigration crackdown. It's hard to imagine an event lower on that hierarchy of danger than a televised Gay Pride parade in the sunny streets of Manhattan featuring a phalanx of ebullient gay cops.

For decades, uniformed members of New York's Gay Officers Action League (GOAL) were barred from participating in Pride—not by parade organizers, but by the NYPD, including long after the event had become a bipartisan civic celebration featuring the likes of Rudy Giuliani. Only in 1996, after filing a federal discrimination lawsuit, were the cops allowed by their own department to march in full dress.

In a press release Friday, GOAL said it was "disheartened" by what it called a "shameful" decision to "placate" activists, adding: "GOAL and our members have had our hands in every police reform and policy revision touching on the LGBTQIA+ community in New York City."

Like all other parades in parade-happy New York, Pride will continue to have a police presence; just on the outside, one block away, and not as exhibitors. "The idea of officers being excluded is disheartening and runs counter to our shared values of inclusion and tolerance," NYPD spokeswoman Sgt. Jessica McRorie told the Times. "That said, we'll still be there to ensure traffic safety and good order during this huge, complex event."

Some police critics and criminal justice reformers, including many I respect, will no doubt cheer this news, seeing it as a continuation of the recently accelerated push to disentangle police from unnecessary and potentially fraught interactions with the citizenry. But using an anti-discrimination event to discriminate against cops has its potential downsides, too.

If you demonize all cops as irredeemable, radioactive sources of potential violence and oppression, this may serve to discourage from police service precisely the types of people—those from historically marginalized communities themselves, and sensitive to the related policy concerns—who reform advocates have long been agitating for departments to hire.

Recruitment right now is not some academic issue: Cops in New York and elsewhere are retiring at rates not seen in years. The types of rookies willing to withstand the refrain that All Cops Are Bastards may not be as friendly to black transgender Pride marchers as the officer who literally sued their way into the parade.

There is a radical reaction to this complaint that's popular among some progressives and libertarians, amounting to: So what? People shouldn't become cops (or soldiers, or tax collectors, or immigration agents, or abortionists, or public school teachers, or practitioners of any fill-in-the-blank profession deemed by the beholder to be furthering evil). If fewer good people are attracted to fundamentally corrupt jobs, that's a net gain for virtue, the argument goes.

Maybe. But also, on the planet we currently live on, there are not many countries where those professions do not exist. Often, jobs involving the use of deadly force are among the most respected in a society, and the most likely to be increased during times of real or perceived crisis. Until we achieve Anarchotopia, there are going to be cops, and (in the case of New York and many other polities where crime is on the dramatic rise) lots of them.

There are many strategies for diffusing tensions between law enforcement and the communities they serve, and many concrete ideas about bringing true reform to an overly violent and carceral criminal justice system (read Reason's October 2020 cover package, titled "Fix the Police," for a primer). One of the biggest eye-openers for me since moving to New York is how many of those reform conversations are taking place on the badge side of the debate—police chiefs against "Stop, Question, and Frisk," district attorneys who launch false conviction review units, vice cops who complain about the Drug War.

To treat those people as interchangeable cogs of a malevolent machine is not only inaccurate and nihilistic, it discourages reformers and encourages brutes. All at a time when rising violent crime threatens to undermine the public case for criminal justice reform.

Unpredictable things happen when people collide, rather than segregate. In that first parade in 1970, Fred Sargeant later recalled in the Village Voice, marchers had no idea whether the NYPD would just start cracking skulls. "There were no floats, no music, no boys in briefs," he wrote. "The cops turned their backs on us to convey their disdain, but the masses of people kept carrying signs and banners, chanting and waving to surprised onlookers." It was the beginning of a beautiful thing.

"I've marched in several other parades and have worked and watched countless others over the years, but the cheers and adulation shown to cops marching in pride by far & hands down is always the greatest and loudest out of them all," Officer Anthony Nuccio wrote in an emotional Twitter thread Sunday. "The decision to ban gay cops from marching is absolutely disheartening and hypocritical. It does nothing but create an even deeper divide in our already divided city & community…. I will always be proud of the work GOAL has accomplished & how it has pushed & will continue to push from within the police department for positive changes. I'm proud to be a member of GOAL, I'm a proud gay man & I am equally proud to serve as a police officer."

NEXT: Tennessee Orders Private Businesses To Warn About Possible Trans People in the Bathrooms

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Some gays are more proud than others.

    1. Some are more prog than others. And the gay pride parade isn’t about GBLT, it’s about proggies.

      1. Some gays are gayer than others?

        1. It’s a spectrum. A colorful rainbow spectrum!

          1. And a blatant appropriation of electrical engineering culture, such as it is.

            (Numerical values of resistors are color coded based on the rainbow).

            1. USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much AS better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
              on this page…..VISIT HERE

            2. USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are AAZ much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
              on this page…..VISIT HERE

            3. TIL resistors are gay.

            4. Ah, but resistors appropriate from Hinduism and Buddhism, since resistance is measured in Oooooohms.

        2. alternate Smiths title.

          1. They’re only human and they need to be loved, just like everybody else does.

  2. Because they felt that we weren’t necessarily living up to our mission, our IRRATIONAL ideals and standards.

    The inmates are running the asylum.

    And what rational adult would fear the police in these circumstances?

  3. “hey, nobody cares about our parade anymore how can we get press?”

  4. I got a laugh out of this, it’s the grievance stack in order to complain you’ve got to have several characteristics. Anyway the left and liberaltarians have been targeting cops for a while and now you’re worried.

  5. I remember when bash crews were a real thing. If Metallica’s “Seek and Destroy” wasn’t written for bash crews out looking for gay men to stomp on Friday nights near Golden Gate Park, Hillcrest in San Diego, or on the main drag in West Hollywood, the bash crews of the era certainly treated it that way. Combating bash crews like that was the impetus for hate crimes against gay men being taken seriously by the police in the 1980s. Before then, the police mostly looked the other way at stuff like that, even in California, and once the police started treating it as something worse than underage drinking at a house party, toilet papering someone’s house, etc., the bash crews mostly dried up and disappeared.

    I don’t know how you expect the government to protect your right to be as gay as you want to be in public, on the one hand, and alienate the cops whose job it is to protect your rights on the other. I think this is another example of progressives caring more about signalling than the consequences of their actions. Without the support of police officers to protect our rights from criminals, you’d need to invent another police force to protect our rights from criminals, and gay men probably need both the protection of and sympathy from the police more than the average person. Talk about biting the hand that protects you, and for what reason? What’s the upside of gay cops not being allowed to signal their support for gay rights?

    1. Apparently, you have to be the “right kind” of gay.
      Or something.

      1. So if they hired the Village People would they let the cop perform?

        1. He’s actually the only straight one in the Village People.

    2. Quite a liar you are. Like Trolls do you hide the lie half way down the comment

      Cops do not protect citizens. They work for the courts and their employers

      1. Who will you call when you are a victim of a crime?

        1. In these fascist states of America? Most likely the bail bondsman.

          1. You’re an idiot. Please go and tell everyone you can that, and tell them you’re a progressive, too. America needs to know that progressives aren’t only America’s most horrible people. They’re also incredibly stupid.

          2. P.S. Not only do progressives have nothing that isn’t stupid to say about who would protect our rights from criminals if it weren’t for the police, they also want to take our guns away.

            1. Boot licker racist film at 11. So sad and violent.

              1. Ken definitely isn’t. But you’re stupid, so your comments are also stupid.

                1. You should see him on other posts. Ask him when police murder.

                  1. We believe you. You are a paragon of honesty.

            2. Between gun control and “abolish police and prisons,” the so-called “Progressives” want to return to a time when the physically strongest ruled and determined what was right and just.

              A “Progressive” world would be a harsh, martial, Mideaval world which, ironically, would be no place for the very young, the very old, women, the physically or mentally infirm, the poor, or the numerical minority of any sort. Funny how that works out.

              1. Sounds like prison, except prison is probably worse.

      2. The idea if government has any legitimate purpose at all, it is to protect our rights is the foundation of all small government libertarianism. The legitimate purpose of the military is to protect our rights from foreign threats. The legitimate purpose of the criminal courts is to protect our rights from the police. And the legitimate purpose of the police is to protect our rights from criminals.

        Because you came to a libertarian forum and didn’t know that the legitimate purpose of the police is to protect our rights from criminals doesn’t make me a liar. It just makes you an ignoramus.

        1. Nah, you’re just a sad violent man. Funny how you flip flop and consider this a libertarian forum now.

      3. Cops are put in an unwinnable situation, the same as pretty much all government employees. There are good cops and bad cops, and usually, they are somewhere in the middle. They are all stuck working in a corrupt system that fails to discourage many of the bad behaviors inherent in their job, while harshly penalizing those that call out the bad actors in the system itself.

        We have to recognize both the good and the bad aspects of the system if we ever want to either fix it, or replace it with an alternative. Many of the problems that cops face, would be faced regardless of if they were state employees, individual security firms, or wild west cowboys. Even kids tasked with tending their little siblings have to deal with similar power dynamics and issues.

    3. Wasn’t it SF where members of the local fire and police filed suit so that they didn’t have to show up at pride parades and get people’s junk rubbed on them and lost? And now they’re specifically forbiding them from attending?

      How power hungry and cravenly stupid do you have to be to make cops look like sympathetic victims?

      1. And now they’re specifically forbiding them from attending?

        They’re not forbidding them from attending. They’re forbidding them from marching. They still want the protection. They don’t want the camaraderie.

        1. They want to signal so they can signal.

    4. In urban areas with no gun culture people are really very dependent on police for protection. In general if you can afford it you address the problem by moving to quiet neighborhood; if you can’t, you accept that you need to rely on corrupt police for protection. Or you seek gang protection which might be more effective but comes with its own costs.

      I think it is potential opportunity to seek out other kinds of intervention and protection. Many of those initiatives are private. Eg Baltimore has an “alternative 911” with list of numbers to call for non police intervention. I’m not sure how effective they are to be honest. Last night I witnessed domestic violence outside my home and called 911 as usual. Someone suggested I call one of these alternative numbers and they look like they could be useful for helping the victim but not for apprehending the perp.

  6. Oh noes! You mean to tell me that rhetoric about defunding the police, emptying out prisons and the demonization of an entire profession by the Left didn’t lead the to police reforms Welch and his fellow libertarian pillow biters wanted? Hey Matt, FYI. The Left ruins everything, every time. You’re welcome.

    1. Clearly you don’t know mat Welch too well. Listen to the fifth column podcast. Welch routinely has the 10th highest iq in the room, right behind the iq of what ever glass they are holding booze in

  7. Like I give a damn?

    Two worthless groups of Societies Sponges hating each other?

    We need more Muslims here. They know how to solve the problem

    (14th floor)

  8. I am making 7 to 6 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to happy my ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily…Visit Here

  9. It’s almost as if the left is a collection of conflicting grievances.

    1. Like I give a damn?

      Two worthless groups of Societies Sponges hating each other?

      We need more Muslims here. They know how to solve the problem

      (14th floor)..aaaaahhhhhh…

      “Going…down, Mr Tyler?”

      1. You and your ilk would make great pets for the Islamofascists.

        Will you be saying all this when the Islamofascists make you wear a piece of yellow cloth?

        Or keep you from walling on the same sidewalk with them?

        Or keep you from building a non-Muslim house of worship, riding horses, bearing arms, or holding a job supervising Muslims, or many other things freedom-loving U.S. Citizens take for granted?

        Or even make you into a cbattel slave, as Muslims do to non-Muslims in tbe Gulf States, Sudan, Mali, Mauritania, Somalia, and elsewhere in Dar Al Islam?

        I hope you know how to sing “Jump Down, Turn Around, Pick A Bale of Cotton” in Arabic. You may want to for balming your work-load one day.

    2. It’s grievances all the way down.

      1. Now that’s what I’m talkin bout!

      2. But enough about FOX News.

    3. Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair! ™

      Yes, I could see conflicts arising from a perpetual grievance mindset.


  10. In order to have heroes you must have villains, and if you can’t find any that are convenient it’s simple enough to make some.

  11. Such pandering to people who who are obsessed with sex with the dirtiest part of the human body? But whatever.

    1. Ah, but you assume all LGBTQ+ people are into unsafe sexual pracices. Not true and indeed, there have been many a LGBTQ+ campaign to encourage condom and dental dam use, to shun “bug-spreaders,” as well as subcultures where no infected bodily fluids are exchanged at all.

      Now what was the old joke about how do porcupines have sex? Hmmmm….

  12. If I was the PD I would refuse to do security for the event. See how much the PRIDE folks whine when no one is there to run traffic control and such.

  13. Sounds like free speech. Or is that just for private companies, not private individuals? I get so confused around here on what’s right and wrong. To be sure.

    1. I dunno, ask the St Patick’s Day parade organizers.

    2. To answer your question, yes and yes for both, within their own respective realms of private property or, in the case of someone else’s property, wherever they have permission.

      (Some also argue that streets are for travel and commerce, not demonstrations or parades for anyone, whether LGBTQ+, Westboro Baptists, Hippies, or Neo-Nazis. But as long as cities permit demonstrations or parades, they should be viewpoint-neutral.)

  14. > It’s hard to imagine an event lower on that hierarchy of danger than a televised Gay Pride parade in the sunny streets of Manhattan featuring a phalanx of ebullient gay cops.

    The to progressive and woke, “safe” is the absence of negative thoughts. It’s not about danger it’s about knowing your priors and worldview won’t get challenged by others. As such, a Gay Republican Florist is as dangerous as a homophobic cop.

    A friend tells me of the time he went to apologize to a man wearing a Log Cabin Republican button for the rudeness of the other Republicans at the convention. He was told, “Oh this is nothing, you should see the attitude I get when I wear this same pin to a Gay convention”.

    Speaking of gays and cops and Republicans, another friend is Republican and quite effeminate. Extremely effeminate. He just looks gay. His husband? A burly San Francisco police officer. I shit you not. They look like they stepped off a Village People cover.

    1. My apologies if I accidentally flagged you. Think, clumsy fingers and smartphones don’t go together.

  15. “Keep it in your holster.”

  16. Where’s Red Rocks, Mark Thrust, ML and all the other homophobic bigots?

    Probably commenting on the Tennessee trans article…

    1. Lol. Are you taking roll call or something, little guy?

      You just get dumber every day. Impressive.

      1. “roll call”

        Good one buddy!

        Ha you have a knack for making the clever remark no one expects.

  17. “Sargeant would rise to the rank of lieutenant before retiring.”

    A Sargeant rising to the rank of lieutenant is no big deal and not in the least camp. It would have been better if he’d changed his name from Fred to Sargeant and remained Sargeant Sargeant for the remainder of his career. In any case, nothing beats the rank of Major General for true camp.

    1. Nah if his name was Fred Sergent they would replace him with Fred york and hope nobody noticed

      1. *Tinkle!-Tinkle!*

        Just don’t get Gladys Kravitz started. 😉

  18. A Gay Pride Parade would be a perfect opportunity for libertarians–whether LGBTQ+ and otherwise–to educate everyone to respect each other’s Life, Liberty, and Property, and Pursuit of Happiness, whether it’s parade marchers, law enforcers, or anti-Pride Parade protesters.

    The libertarian banners could read: “Live And Let Live Or Don’t!”, “Be A Drag or Or Be A Queen, Just Be Peaceful!” or “Everybody Get Along or GTFO!”

    1. “……being an activist is totally gay!”

      1. Good one!

      2. Clever girl!

  19. Private organization, they can do what they want.

  20. This is yet another unforced error by the “gay community”. I’m gay and have never been a big fan of pride events. More and more they’re becoming merely an extension of progressive politics rather than celebrating a commonality. And as the political nature becomes more forefront, the more divisive these events become, rather than celebrating that commonality. My sexual preference (yes, using that “unwoke” term intentionally) should have nothing to do with my views on government. Particularly since Obergfell v. Hodges passed, and the cornerstone piece of “gay legislation” had been settled, the political aims of the “gay community” (keep using scare quotes because I really hate the term) are becoming more and more radical and extreme and divisive. The trans stuff, particularly when it comes to anything remotely scientific, is appalling to anyone with rationality and reason. No thanks.

    1. Yup, the priorities of late seem to be about gathering more and more power for the gay activists and organizations, and nothing to do with helping gay people live the best lives possible. In so many cases the causes they push for makes life worse for the average gay person, and do little more than to earn more hostility with the country at large.

      Being gay will always come with challenges that do not come up for straight people, or at least not in the same ratio, but instead of us being rational adults and trying to evaluate those difficulties, and asking what we can do as a community to help mitigate them. We just turned into a puppet for the DNC and spout whatever nonsense they want to push to maintain the status quo. All because they had the amazing foresight to jump on the gay acceptance wagon years after it had already become the majority position that it should be left as an individual choice.

  21. Just for those not keeping up, ending discrimination has never been the actual goal.

    1. For large swaths of gay activists, I would agree. I’m sure there were those that declared victory and packed away their grievances once marriage was legalized. But it’s much harder to stop a movement than it is to start one.

  22. Wokeholes are fascists so it’s not surprising they would discriminate and try to silence an entire profession. Woke supremacists are fragile and intolerant.

  23. It’s *always* been about power and control, not discrimination or individual rights for woke supremacists.

  24. You’re also not welcome at gay pride events if you’re conservative or libertarian. And by “not welcome”, I mean that people get hostile and violent.

  25. Welch suggests he’s all about seeing the gray – but what about the other side of that? Cops can march in the parade, just not as part of a group of cops. And the reality is that the police really don’t give a damn about violence against trans people, particularly sex workers. So maybe it’s time for a little polite distance. Hopefully it will encourage dialogue.

    I also don’t think this particular act is going to turn anyone away from being a police officer. The reality is that in the gay community, cops are sort of their own clique because soft drug use (GHB, pot, ecstasy) is prevalent among many LGBTI while socializing.

    1. The reality is that in the gay community, cops are sort of their own clique because soft drug use (GHB, pot, ecstasy) is prevalent among many LGBTI while socializing.

      The reality is that the people marching in NYC are not representative of “the gay community”; the reality is that they are drug and sex addicted leftists who also happen to be gay.

      1. No, the reality is people like you are always unattractive losers who feel left out. You aren’t left out for being conservative, either.

        1. Show me a group of gay conservatives and I’ll show you a group of socially awkward skinnyfat people with asymmetrical faces.

          1. So you’re saying “the gay community excludes people who are socially awkward and not good looking”.

            Thanks for putting your bigotry and shallowness on display for all to see. We’re indeed in agreement about the state of the community you are part of.

        2. Yes, because as we all know, the stuff of gay sexual fantasies is genderqueer social studies majors and post transition transmen! The more woke, the more attractive, right?

          I didn’t feel “left out”, I simply didn’t like drugs, meaningless sex, self-loathing, and bigotry. That’s why I walked away.

  26. So gays rioting to protest police raids was a good thing and lead to parades while rioting to protest election irregularities means you should be forever a pariah (and prosecuted and held in solitary confinement).

    1. No I think the bad guys are on the same team in both scenarios.

    2. “protest election irregularities”

      Nice euphemism for “attempted coup.” Straight out of some South American asshole’s mouth. Straight out of Saddam Hussein’s mouth.

  27. Just a reminder, Matt Welch doesn’t want minorities in his kids school.

    1. Just a reminder, there’s a very useful mute button.

      1. Ahhhhh, racist is mad.

    2. Citation please.

  28. Just for the record, the entire gay thing is just one massive cultural appropriation form the Judeo-Christian community.
    Genesis 9:12-17
    12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between Me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all future generations: 13 I have placed My bow in the clouds, and it will be a sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. 14 Whenever I form clouds over the earth and the bow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember My covenant between Me and you and all the living creatures:[b] water will never again become a flood to destroy every creature. 16 The bow will be in the clouds, and I will look at it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all the living creatures[c] on earth.” 17 God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have confirmed between Me and every creature on earth.”

    1. To be fair, maybe they appropriated it from the Norsemen. I mean, a rainbow bridge?

    2. But if JHVH-1 supposedly created the entire Universe, everything Man does or uses in that Universe is “appropriation” from JHVH-1, so you can’t pin divine “appropriation” just on LGBTQ+ people.

      Yep, it’s JHVH-1’s world. We just live in it. (What a mess, huh?)

      You forgot to mention that the next time JHVH-1 destroys the Earth, it’ll be with fire, as he supposedly dictated to stenographer Saint John in The Book of Revelation. How generous of JHVH-1. /sarc

  29. I searched the comment thread for the phrase “Village People.” You folks did not disappoint.

  30. Many people know that New York’s legendary Gay Pride Parade was launched in response to the violent 1969 police raid of a Greenwich Village gay bar called the Stonewall Inn. Less well-known is that a key organizer of that initial defiant and celebratory march was a cop.

    Even lesser known: The raid on the Stonewall club was triggered by the fact it was a mob-owned establishment, the cops didn’t give a shit about gay people gathering there.

    1. That and they were selling alcohol without a license. I wonder who they forgot to pay off that week.

    2. There’s even more to the story than that.

      There was also a New York City ordinance that if a club, restaurant, or inn had so much as one homosexual patron, the police could declare the establishment a “bawdy” or “disorderly” house, close the place down, and fine and/or arrest all involved. New York City also had an ordinance against dressing in clothing attributed to another gender.

      These ordinances taken together forced homosexuals and other LGBTQ+ people to meet and gather in illegal, dirty, and dangerous places, such as public restrooms, tractor-trailors for meat processors, and Mob-run clubs with no fire safety, no functioning plumbing, and illegal or heisted alcohol.

      In the case of Stonewall, politicians who wrote the laws, police who enforced the laws, and Mafia who filled in the niche with a black-market, were all oppressors and exploiters of LGBTQ+ people, who then got sick of it all and had an uprising.

      One good thing about Stonewall: Unlike the “race” riots of the late Sixties and today, it was very a very targeted and selective uprising. LGBTQ+ did not move on from there to destroy New York City or incite and spark destruction of cities nationwide and worldwide.

    3. But why were the gays forced to gather in a mob shithole?

      You know what’s funny about bigots? How they blame the people they are oppressing for the habits they engage in because they are kept marginalized.

      “Why are you in such shitty neighborhoods, lazy blacks! Go to college!”

      1. I just answered that above and I support standing against tyrannical lawmakers, Mafia, and police when they don’t fulfill their role as protectors of Life, Liberty, and Property. Please try to keep up.

  31. How does marching with the police make it any less safe than excluding them? What are they going to do exactly? If they turn on other marchers and become violent then you call the police who are not marching to come and protect you. Your safety is just as assured as it would be under any other circumstances.

    That is of course if safety is indeed the real issue.

    Perhaps the real issue is the increasing irrelevance of gay pride and the need to have some other reason for coming together as a group. There is no need to exhibit pride about something over which you have no control. If you are born that way then there is no more need to have a pride march than one for being born with blue eyes.

    Whilst there may have been injustices in the past anti-discrimination law has largely guaranteed the rights of those who call themselves homosexual. There is no need for a gay pride march and there never was. There is only a need to keep fighting against injustice.

    If you have issues with the police force then do something reasonable about them. Take real action and not some lame token of complaint based on your neurotic need for ‘safety’.

  32. Since when is anyone obligated to associate with those they dislike? The right to freedom of association also includes the right to not associate as well, after all.

    Blue is not a protected race. Police is not a protected class.

  33. Interesting discussion. It’s hard to think of not needing police, so reform rather than resist seems logical. Are the police an abstract concept that can be molded to fit society’s norms, or are they a distinct oppressive force, at least in this country, that should be reformed into something wholly new, with an entirely different outlook on the mission of social order?

    I’ll always have a soft spot in my heart for people who resist police, because, let’s face it, they are agents of the state sent to do you harm if you step out of line, and there hasn’t been a single day in American history when they weren’t working for the white heterosexual majority, even if sometimes they worked for others.

    As for so-called libertarians who found themselves defending the cops right or wrong during this last little cultural episode, well don’t say I didn’t tell you what you really were. You love cops. You suck cop dick as long as it’s protecting your precious stuff from “them.”

    You don’t get into the business of limited government + property rights, an utter contradiction, if you aren’t the most fearful, most tribal sort. There’s not a goddamn ounce of government you people want to take away when it serves your interests, is there?

    1. Tldr: “I actually kind of agree with the article but since I don’t want to be seen as a traitor to my progressive tribe I will rather childishly attack libertarians”.

    2. A government limited to protect property rights would be both limited and protecting property rights in a completely consistent way.

      Wherever you learned logic, go learn more.

      1. Yeah, property owners get poor mothers to pay for the government services they need, but mothers who need healthcare for their babies are on their own. Yeah, it does have the supreme virtue of consistency.

        1. I’m not sure whether poor mothers make enough income or own enough property to pay taxes for police protection, but they get it anyway and I don’t begrudge paying for police protection (though ideally, all government services should be voluntarily financed.)

          The point being, governments are instituted among us to protect our individual rights.

          From there, on everything else, individuals can take care of themselves and each other as best they can. If mortality rates, life expectancies, living standards, and immigration rates are any indicator, freer nations do a better job of it.

          To give just one example, with private pharmacies distributing COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S., Citizens just call to schedule an appointment for the vaccine with a brief wait or (in my case) just get the vaccine for the asking! Pharmacies even announce on the PA when an opening comes up due to cancellation or no-shows and can take patient right then and there! Amazing!

          Under Britian’s National Health Service (NHS), people first have to be registered in the system, then they have to qualify for the vaccine and get prioritized for it according to NHS standards, then they have to be called by the NHS, then they have to wait in line for untold days or weeks before they actually get the vaccine!

          Yep, what’s left of private health care works excellent when it’s allowed!

          1. I think you guys need a rock-solid edifice of principle so that you don’t have to admit that all of the policy choices you want to implement are just that, policy choices.

            You have a choice whether you want a state that only pays for police and nothing else. There’s nothing stopping you from supporting the collective funding of healthcare, science, whatever else. You tell me what’s stopping you. It’s not God. It’s not aliens. It’s just a story you are telling yourself.

            There’s no way around the logic, though, because you can’t object to the state on the grounds that it causes violence against people–and then support only those government functions that involve shooting people in the head or putting them in a cage.

            1. “There’s no way around the logic, though, because you can’t object to the state on the grounds that it causes violence against people–and then support only those government functions that involve shooting people in the head or putting them in a cage.”

              It is actually the other way around: it is because the government by its very own definition* involves “shooting people in the head” that many classical liberals wanted to limit its scope as much as possible to things that actually might necessitate violence (police/justice/military…). You can’t have penal justice without violence but you sure can have science without violence.

              At the very least if you want to use the state (aka force, by definition) to fund something the burden of proof is on you.

              It is not “you are agreeing to the state killing people, but not doing some other useful stuff” but more “the state already has the power to kill people, maybe we should not give it too many other powers as well”.

              * monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force

              1. Burden of proof? What is this burden of proof?

                Take your swell idea to the people and see if they want to buy it. That’s all.

                Anything else is called tyranny, and you’re not smart enough to be qualified to force me to live a certain way.

                1. We disagree on the legitimate size and scope of the government, fine… but that’s not the topic of this article.

                  Could we maybe agree on the fact that excluding gay cops organizations from the gay pride parade is not really a great idea? This is still true even if you don’t like cops (or the gay pride parade).

                  And (more meaningfully) that this is once again an example of the current American* “progressive” movement becoming more and more intolerant?

                  As a french, I can tell you something: like Saturn, the “Revolution” devours its children. People like you (who spend their time on a libertarian website !) will probably be next in line.

          2. Which is to say, it seems like garden variety insecurity to hide behind these axioms and assumptions. If you thought your policy preferences were actually good ones, you could just defend them on their merits, not submit them to an ideological test that came from someone’s spoiled tuna sandwich one day.

      2. Good point too. Whether it takes with Tony is all on him, though.

    3. Yes, Tony. Limited government libertarians defend police when they protect Life, Liberty, and Property as they should, then criticize, condemn, and stand against them when they violate Life, Liberty, and Property…and that goes for everyone’s, inclueing yours. It’s really not that hard to understand.

      1. But an infant born to poor parents that needs healthcare in order to survive… not the job of government, correct?

        Because infants aren’t alive! Only fetuses.

        1. What do infants and fetuses have to do with police and Gay Pride parades?

          But since you mentioned it, there are private charities, GoFundMe, KickStarter, and many other resources for helping the poor without government force. You may want to contribute yourself as I do.

          Not bringing children into the world to require care is also an option which we both do, so what’s the bitch, Tony?

          1. So start a Gofundme for your property rights.

            You make this one exception to your stated anti-government principles, and it just so happens to be for the most violent use of government force there is (shooting trespassers). If you can make me pay for that, I can make you pay for libraries. Tell me why not. Oh, please invoke a deity.

            1. I am an Atheist, so you really don’t keep up.

              Also, the libraries of today are dust magnets for people suffering with allergies, hangouts for loud, raucus juvinile delinquent punks, indoor homeless encampments, fleabags for people’s so-called “service animals,” and job programs for the librarians and library personnel who won’t do a damn thing about these problems. You make me subsidize what counts as libraries and you’ll get what you deserve there!

              1. Libraries were just a stand-in for any number of public services.

                You live in a fantasy world. I’ve known kindergarteners with a more sophisticated understanding of how the world works.

                1. They should be a stand-in for a Juvie home or a holding cell for trespassers. Alexandria they are not anymore. Libraries provide nothing that and Wikipedia and the rest of the Internet cannot provide and for less.

  34. As a gay man, the cops should be happy they don’t have to hang out with those losers. I went to one Pride and that was it. Those degenerates don’t represent or speak for me. It’s mostly virtue signaling strait people anyways.

    1. It’s not for everyone. I mean, it literally is for everyone, but you have to be comfortable with some of the skimpier-clothed aspects of gay culture. I for one have a lot of fun at them, though the last time I went my memory stops just as my weed gummy and mystery cocktail were kicking in.

  35. I don’t know how you expect the government to protect your right to be as gay as you want to be in public, on the one hand, and alienate the cops whose job it is to protect your rights on the other. I think this is another example of progressives caring more about signalling than the consequences of their actions. Without the support of police officers to protect our rights from criminals, you’d need to invent another police force to protect our rights from criminals, and gay men probably need both the protection of and sympathy from the police more than the average person. Talk about biting the hand that ,protects you, and for what reason? What’s the upside of gay cops not being allowed to signal their support for gay rights?

Please to post comments