I'm not a supporter of the proposed federal hate crimes bill, but gay activists tied at the waist to the Democratic Party are, so it's interesting to watch how the congressional Democrats are treating this supposed high priority item-burying it within an attempt at Iraqi war defunding-a measure which, even if passed, Bush has pledged to veto-and how gay "progressives" are providing them cover. Gay Patriot has the run down in his own highly partisan (going the other direction) style. Still, a valid critique on the Democrats' "throw the gays a meaningless bone" tactics. His money quote:
Democrats controlled the U.S. House for 40 years before 1995, and the Senate many times throughout. The only major gay rights legislation or mandate to come from the Democrats when they had the chance in power: Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Great record, eh?
More. For those who reflexively dismiss anything from Gay Patriot, here's the independent-minded Chris Crain, a former Washington Blade editor and a hate-crimes bill supporter, weighing in, too. And in a follow-up, Crain takes further issue with "HRC and the Democrats...claiming that the DOD authorization was a good strategic vehicle." Right.
17 Comments for “What Happens When the Party of Your “One Party Strategy” Takes You for Granted”
posted by Jason on
GayPatriot is eminently annoying. Every blog entry smacks of trying to sound as hackneyed and partisan as possible with the pretension that it is somehow unique because it is from a gay perspective. At least gay liberals have the gay culture thing going for them to explain the impassioned nonsense, to a degree. GayPatriot should be renamed “Me Too!” It is, at least, a very clever self-parody … whether or not that is intended notwithstanding.
posted by Lori Heine on
It is pretty sad-sack to continue slavish devotion to the Democratic Party when its record on actual gay issues is so bad. No party can stand on rhetoric alone, and even the rhetoric from most Democrats, lately, has been less than inspiring where gays are concerned.
But to tout the Republicans as any viable alternative is questionable, too. Many are still viciously, vehemently anti-gay, and the ones who aren’t show a willingness to throw us overboard when “the base” makes any noise.
Determining who is, or who is not, your “base” is very much a moral issue, and very much a matter of choice. There are certainly other sorts of Republicans (and historically, there always have been) besides the religious-loony, social-retro bigoted hysterics who run the party now. A conscious decision has been made to pander to these people, and the choice says as much about those in power in the Republican Party as it does about the members of “the base” itself.
I don’t trust the Democrats. But I see no reason to trust the Republicans either.
posted by ETJB on
Ah, more dishonest partisan spin trying to pass itself off as the ‘fair and balanced’ truth.
First off all, LGBT people have a multi-party strategy; Stonewall DFL, LCR, Out Right Libertarians, Lavender Greens, etc.
Yet, only two of these parties are viable choices (unless we want real campaign law reform) and only one of them has a defendable record on equal rights.
Do really mean to argue that anyone that supports the Federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act is “tied at the waist to the Democratic Party.” Does that mean that everyone who opposes it is tied to the waste of the anti-gay GOP, Al-Qadea or the Iraqi militas killing gays?
A bill often ends up being attached to another bill, even if they are on different subjects. It is a part of the process (both parties do it) and anyone with half a brain ought to know that.
Gay conservatives often complain about the lack of civility and honesty they receive from the community, dont help themselves by dishing more partisan cow pies out.
“Democrats controlled the U.S. House for 40 years before 1995, and the Senate many times throughout.”
Yeah. LGBT bills such as hate crime prevention and civil rights were not mainstream. They were supported by a handful of liberal Democrats and that was it.
Today, (because of those ‘evil ‘gay activists) many gay rights issues have much more mainstream support.
DOMA was prompted by the GOP-controlled Congress as part of its ‘Contract With America’ (on?). The 1996 Presidential election was a choice between Clinton or Dole.
Clinton enacted E/O policy in Federal civilian employment, and the FBI. He increased AIDS funding & research, He supported the ENDA and the HCPA.
Dole opposed all of these measures, except maybe AIDS funding and said that the DOMA bill did not go far enough.
What the ’96 Libertairan, Green, Socialist or Communist candidate said did
not matter and will not UNTIL WE GET BEHIND real campaign law reform.
DODT (which added dont harass) is better then previous policy. It stops formally asking, it has an anti-harassment policy.
People who dont know how draconian the pre-DODT policy was only need to read Randy Shilits “Conduct Unbecoming” (1994).
Again, Dole opposed any changes to miliary ban as did most of the GOP leadership.
Then we have the LGBT record of the Reagan-Bush era….
posted by Bobby on
DADT has gotten more gays expelled from the military than any other previous policy. Bill Clinton did really bad with that compromise.
“Determining who is, or who is not, your “base” is very much a moral issue, and very much a matter of choice.”
—Evangelical christians will always be part of the republican base, that’s something we all have to live with. That’s something I accept. You don’t tell millions of born again Christians to go to hell. God help us if we become like the brits where you vote for a Tory and end up getting Labor because both parties are so alike.
posted by Lori Heine on
Bobby, I’m not telling evangelical Christians to go anywhere. What I am saying is that there are also millions of other Christians besides them, and these other Christians do not agree with them.
There is beginning to be a real backlash by more liberal and moderate Christians against the attempted hijacking of their faith by the reactionary Right. And many of these more-moderate Christians happen to be Republicans, too.
It’s creepy, how the black-and-white, all-or-nothing propaganda of the Religious Right has affected even those of us who should know better. All too many of us buy into the lie that they are the only “real” Christians, and that no one else’s convictions matter but theirs. Telling them to move over and make room for those who share their faith but have alternative ideas about how to express that faith is, therefore, seen as telling them to “go to hell.”
This is of a piece with the rest of their paranoid propaganda, and I, for one, refuse to buy into it.
posted by Brian Miller on
Gosh, if they keep this up, eventually they’ll have a Democratic president who signs an anti-gay marriage bill and bans gay servicepeople in the military!
posted by Bobby on
“that they are the only “real” Christians, and that no one else’s convictions matter but theirs”
—I don’t believe in liberal Christians, I went to an MCC church a few times and never heard the pastor speak once against sin. If those people ever do talk about sin, it’s the sin of ecological damage, or the sin of the war in Darfur, or how sinful it is that some people make more money than others. If you ask me, it’s socialism with a cross.
I also find it hypocritical that while the left bitches about evangelical christians when they get involved in politics, they say nothing when leftwing Christians and churches do the same.
I don’t think there is a backlash against evangelicals outside of crazy blue states like California and a few cities like Boulder, Colorado, where a professor who called 9/11 victims “little Eichmans” has protestors defending his view. Remember Harvard president Summers? He said women may not be as good as men when it comes to math and science, and he got canned a lot quicker than Churchill did, and the ACLU didn’t defend him.
“Telling them to move over and make room for those who share their faith but have alternative ideas”
—They’re told to move over all the time, sometimes they even get fired for their politically incorrect beliefs. Sorry, but I cannot be sympathetic to the plight of poor liberal Christians that are embraced by the mainstream media as examples for the rest of us to follow.
The reality is that most evangelicals are on the defensive these days. They have to fight against public schools that want to indoctrinate their children, an Orwellian government that wants to ban home schooling, liberal activists that want to undo their churches tax free status, the ACLU that raises hell over crosses in city emblems and valedictorian speeches that dare mention Jesus or faith.
I know what I’m saying, not only because of the blogs I read but because I’ve had to argue with liberal clients that think if you say “Merry Christmas” in an ad you might offend jews, hindus, muslims, atheists, secualar radicals, etc.
posted by Lori Heine on
“The reality is that most evangelicals are on the defensive these days.”
Bobby, they are on the defensive all the time. It has become practically their entire identity, and is, indeed, the major source of their voluminous fundraising income. For these people, it’s always “To the battlements!” about everything.
Whether or not you choose to believe in liberal Christianity is entirely your own business. The fact remains that opposition to evangelicals’ “nobody counts but us” attitude is rising rapidly, and I can attest that it is happening in red states like my own native Arizona, as well as in the “crazy” blue states.
My assertion stands. In a pluralistic society, there must be room for differing views on theology and Scripture. The point you seem to be trying to make — that your opinion counts for more than mine — is one I will not concede.
posted by Bobby on
“The point you seem to be trying to make — that your opinion counts for more than mine — is one I will not concede.”
—That’s not my point at all. My point is that the liberal point of view is expressed more often, given more favorable coverage and treated as truth than the conservative or evangelical point of view. Evangelicals, conservatives, NRA members and others have no choice but to engage in letter writing campaigns to let the politicos understand that inspite of the leftwing media, they are not the majority. Hollywood does not represent most Americans. New York does not represent the views of the average Arizonan.
Your state is a great example. I would guess most Arizonans want a wall on the border, support the minutemen and inded voted to deny illegal immigrants rights they should have never gotten in the first place. Yet your governor overrulled the people’s vote and your local newspapers and TV stations support illegal aliens,
That is why when Pat Robertson calls for Chavez to be killed he gets a lot more criticism than when some liberal celebrity says it’s good Tony Snow has cancer.
The media hates conservatives and evangelicals, but they are not the majority. Even if people are disapointed with Bush and the war, that doesn’t mean they’re ready to embrace socialism.
posted by Lori Heine on
Bobby, here — as in so many other instances — we simply must agree to disagree.
Because I do minister to gay Christians, because I graduated from a Southern Baptist college, because I was a catechist in the (increasingly moving toward evangelicalism politically) Catholic Church for nearly a decade, I didn’t just crawl out from under some rock when it comes to this issue.
We keep inviting these people into dialogue — at forums at which they’re free to come and air their own point of view about gay issues — and they keep not showing up. They don’t want anybody trying to change their minds, and they regard the mere fact that somebody might as an infringement on their own rights.
In other words, their “rights” include the freedom to violate our rights. Our rights, on the other hand, don’t even include the right to defend ourselves.
The local news media refuses to cover any religious point of view that is not conservative evangelical or Right-Wing Catholic because it is “too controversial” — i.e. it will make the bullies and the loudmouths mad.
You think these people are exalted freedom-fighters of truth, justice and the American way. I think they’re lowdown, lying chickenshits — the media equivalent of terrorists.
Again, we will simply have to disagree.
posted by Amicus on
I’m not a supporter of the proposed federal hate crimes bill, ..
—-
Any arguments to support your knee-jerk … Republicanism?
As for the Log Cabins …
You know, when they started out, the idea of a group that might act as ‘pioneers’ inside the Party-of-Gay-Hate-and-Homophobia seemed like an interesting tactic.
As time passes, however, they seem to spend an increasing amount of time attacking “gay leftists” and “proving” their allegiance to conservative principles, than trying to move opinion within their own party. As such, what use are they, really?
That the Log Cabins, no less, should suggest that the DoD Authorization Bill isn’t one of the best placements on the legislative calendar to get something passed is … perhaps a new lowpoint.
Here’s a question for Gay Citizen, who’s ‘patriotism’ is too much on display, maybe: In the past 35 years, when has Congress ever failed to vote a Defense authorization?
The vote is coming, just not today.
posted by Lori Heine on
“As time passes, however, they seem to spend an increasing amount of time attacking ‘gay leftists’ and ‘proving’ their allegiance to conservative principles, than trying to move opinion within their own party. As such, what use are they, really?”
I wonder the same thing. There certainly is a lot to be said for acting with integrity and standing up for our convictions, and honest people of good will are going to notice this. With people of that caliber, our example will make a positive difference.
There are many others on the Right, however (both political Right and religious) who don’t give a rat’s caboose how godly or patriotic we are. At best they just plain don’t care, and at worst they are determined not to see it or acknowledge it — are even willing to lie and deny that it is there.
I don’t intend to spend one minute of my time trying to convince those people. Nor will I give money to a group that kisses up to them. It’s degrading, it’s stupid and it’s utterly pointless.
There are some good people on the political and Religious Right. As individuals, I do from time to time defend them. The rest of them are snakes in the grass. If people recognize this — and a growing number do — I’m not about to stand on a soapbox and declaim how victimized and misunderstood they are, just for the sake of scoring points they are never going to give me.
posted by Brian Miller on
I went to an MCC church a few times and never heard the pastor speak once against sin.
As an agnostic with an unbiased view of what’s categorized as “sin,” I can confirm it’s typically “all the things I think that are bad that YOU do.”
Religious organizations are incredibly adept at creating the “sinful enemy,” while simultaneously presenting themselves as pure and uncorrupted. Ironically, they don’t read their own religious books, which designate their shrimp-consuming, beard-shaving, polyster-cotton-mix-shirt-wearing, cheeseburger-enjoying, not-sending-the-wife-into-a-tent-in-the-backyard-during-her-period-avoiding selves. 😉
posted by ETJB on
No, the fact that people are less willing to remain in the closet is why more gay and lesbian servicemen and women are being kicked out.
posted by Lori Heine on
“I went to an MCC church a few times and never heard the pastor speak once against sin.”
Again, Brian has a point. Bobby, I stand for consistency in the churches — something neither Left nor Right has brought to them.
Those on the Left, truth be told, think that Jesus was little more than a very wise man. Thus do they take seriously His moral and ethical teachings and disregard what He is recorded as having said about Himself.
Conservatives believe in the grand, high-christological claims traditionally made about Jesus — claims based upon what He, indeed, said about Himself — but they ignore the greater part of what He taught them.
Who is more hypocritical? Why, the conservatives, of course — and donkeyishly so. They are blind fools, and a disgrace to everything Jesus stood for.
A genuine belief in the teachings of Christ — and I mean ALL of them, without the cafeteria-style game of pick-and-choose played by both Right and Left — would turn the world upside-down. Guess that’s why each “side” treats the Christian faith like a cafeteria line instead of the Feast of the Bridegroom.
posted by Randy on
Well, the Republicans controlled congress for about 15 years, and in the last few, we even had a Republican president.
I;m having a hard time counting all the pro-gay legistation passed by the Republicans. Perhaps someone can help me?
posted by sdfsdf on
Chris Crain independent? How laughable.