Matt has a good point here, I think:
Similarly, the gay rights movement does indeed want gay couples to be unmolested in their private conduct. But their demands go far beyond that. They want to regulate who you may employ, who you may rent a house to, etc., etc., etc. — not merely a state that refrains from discriminating, but a state that takes the lead in fighting discrimination.
To me, this is all to the good. And if Cato Institute employees want to endorse it, that’s all to the good as well. But it’s not libertarianism.
That’s a fair assessment even now of the main agenda of gay rights groups. It’s not, however, my own 
agenda. Nor is it that of many gay libertarian/conservatives. For a different flavor of discourse on gay rights, try the Independent Gay Forum. Virtually Normal tried to grapple with this. I argued specifically against the liberal recipes for gay equality: against hate crime laws and even against employment discrimination laws. I argued that a conservative position on gay rights would leave private discrimination and prejudice alone and change only the government’s stance so that all citizens are treated equally by the state, even if they are subject to discrimination by private entities. Virtually Normal did contribute, I think, to a deeper understand that marriage rights and military service were central to the gay rights movement. In that, it helped revolutionize the gay rights movement – against the wishes of many of its leftist leaders. But I had no luck trying to shift the liberal nannying and tolerance-mongering of the gay establishment.
Still, we’re not all liberals. For the record. But it’s a quixotic position, I will sadly concede. Freedom is not as popular as it once was. And liberals have helped whittle it away.
The Dish 