Washington Blade editor Kevin Naff finds more signs of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation’s decent into rank Democratic partisanship. He writes:
This misguided strategy of turning LGBT rights into a partisan issue and the LGBT movement into a wing of the Democratic Party is as much a mistake today as it was 20 years ago.
That’s what I’ve been saying.
James Kirchick has more to say about GLAAD’s decline into irrelevance.
Shifting gears a bit, today Britain is saying farewell to Margaret Thatcher, and here’s an interesting look at how the former prime minister—no friend of gay rights—expanded economic freedom and by doing so created the underpinning for increased social freedom. As well as a view of Thatcher as “gay icon.”
The left is again disgracing itself by celebrating her demise.
14 Comments for “There They Go Again”
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
1. You are not the only person to suggest that gay rights legislation will be advanced through broad based electoral coalitions (including Democrats, Republicans and Independents). The problem I see now for gay Republicans and straight allies who are Republican is that they do not seem to want to do the important legwork within their own party (that gay Democrats/allies did within the Democratic Party).
2. Marget Thatcher was before my time and I have heard good and bad things about her policies and her personality. She earned her place in history for what she did (the same as a male politician would) and not all criticism of her policies is the same thing as laughing on her grave.
Had I been a British citizen back in the day, I doubt that I would have voted for her. I would have probably voted Labour or maybe for the third way, third party; Social Democrat-Liberal Alliance.
‘Economic freedom’ is often a clever buzz word by people that (often) back crony corporatism or the cult of Ayn Rand.
By all accounts she generally opposed gay rights as Prime Minister, supported anti-gay political campaigns and about the only thing good to say — in that department — is that she backed the initial quasi-legalization of homosexuality in the late 1960s and may have had some gay friends.
After she was out of power, she did (maybe) express some support for getting rid of Clause 28. Like in 2000 when the vote came up or something.
Most of what has happened — in terms of gay rights — came after the Conservative Government fell (Thatcher and then later some one called Major). Tony Blair and his New Labour Government made most of the advances in gay rights in the UK.
posted by Doug on
The only reason LGBT rights became a partisan issue is because the the fundamentalist right wing of the GOP said we were child molesting monsters and wanted to criminalize our behavior while the Left was generally more tolerant, able to evolve and not as nasty.
The partisanship came from your party, Stephen, and nobody forced that on them except themselves.
posted by Jorge on
The only reason LGBT rights became a partisan issue is because the the fundamentalist right wing of the GOP said we were child molesting monsters and wanted to criminalize our behavior while the Left was generally more tolerant, able to evolve and not as nasty.
That’s a little like saying the only reason the FALN was a terrorist group was because of longstanding imperialism by the United States.
No. It’s because they made a choce to respond by killing people. People need to learn how to take responsibility for their actions.
posted by Clayton on
It might be a mistake to make LGBT rights a partisan issue, but from where I stand, responsibility for the mistake lies with the RNC. If there was *ever* an opportunity to appropriate the issue from the Dems, it was last week, when the RNC voted whether or not to continue to define marriage as one man and one woman. They had the opportunity to put a gay rights plank in the party platform, and they threw that opportunity away.
posted by Mike in Houston on
This just in:
Republican National Committee makes antipathy to LGBT civil rights a partisan issue.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I note that Cal Thomas’ (a wonderful role model for conservatives who want to bring the Republican Party out of the dark ages of anti-gay advocacy, to be sure) article is about British reactions to Margaret Thatcher (it is even titled “Too much hate in British politics“), and has nothing whatsoever to do with the United States.
Is there a connection I’m missing?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
That’s what I’ve been saying.
Yup, that’s what you’ve been saying. But what have you been doing? That’s what counts.
Did you lift a finger to thwart the Republican effort to pass 30-odd state anti-marriage amendments, 20 of which also ban civil unions? Did you do anything to fight Tony Perkins when he drafted the 2012 Republican Platform? Did you work against any of the Republicans with 0% HRC voting records?
You’ve spilled a lot of ink bemoaning the fact that Democrats weren’t moving the ball forward fast enough to suit you, and you’ve spilled a lot of ink worrying over HRC and GLAAD, neither of which amount to much in politics. While you were busy with that, hard-core social conservatives bought the Republican Party through ground-up political activism and sold equality down the river.
LGBT rights have become a partisan issue in the last decade because the Bush/Rove re-election strategy opted to use gays and lesbians as cannon fodder for short-term political gain.
posted by Houndentenor on
Margaret Thatcher was an anti-gay bigot. She passed heinous anti-gay legislation in spite of having many gay people in her administration. Whether she believed the filth she spewed about gay people or just said it for political gain matters not. She said it anyway and it was a horrible time for gay people in the UK. She deserves the scorn being directed at her legacy by gay people worldwide. That’s not a personal attack. It’s a criticism of what she actually did. I don’t see how that is unfair. Perhaps it’s rude to discuss such things so soon after one’s death, but I don’t remember any waiting period after the death of Ted Kennedy from the right. There doesn’t seem to be any such civility in the present day. If you liked her economic policies and her union-busting, that is another discussion, but her statements and legislative record on gay rights (save one early vote in the 1960s to decriminalize homosexuality) are indefensible and it’s appalling that you can’t see that.
posted by Houndentenor on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VRRWuryb4k&feature=player_embedded#!
How does any gay person defend that?
posted by Kosh III on
I agree with Doug and Tom which is why I will never EVER vote for a Republican. If I can’t support the Democratic candidate I will go Green—at least they have consistently supported our right to life. (Plus I hug trees a lot)
posted by Houndentenor on
I have voted for pro-gay Republican candidates. Not often because there just aren’t that many opportunities. I voted for Bloomberg once in NYC. He was better than the alternative. (Note: I didn’t say he was perfect or that I agreed with him on everything but the ads being run against him were imho homophobic. Had the Democrats run a better candidate I might have voted for him or her but they didn’t.) Now I live in Texas and it’s a race among Republicans to see who is more anti-gay. It’s revolting. In a few cases last fall I voted for a libertarian or a green just so I wouldn’t have to vote for the proud-to-be-a-bigot Republican that was running without a Democrat against them. (Note: in every case I checked. I know better than to assume a Democrat down here is pro-gay. I read what everyone said on their website before deciding how I would vote.) It sucks to be in exile back in my home state. I do not plan for it to be permanent.