On Thursday night, my partner David and I went to a moving event at the Smithsonian Institution in D.C., as the papers and other memorabilia of pioneering gay activist Dr. Frank Kameny were formally welcomed (and some displayed) by the National Museum of American History. Kameny's early political placards can now be viewed in near proximity to Jefferson's desk, Lincoln's stovepipe hat, and Dorothy's ruby slippers. Kameny himself, now in his '80s, spoke of being fired from his government post when it was revealed he was a "deviant," how he coined the phrase "Gay is Good" and organized the first-ever openly gay picketing in front of the White House, how far we've come, and how much farther we have to go still.
The event brought together a range of activists from across the political spectrum. I was happy to have an opportunity to socialize with, in addition to IGF's Jon Rauch and contributing author (and registered Democrat) Rick Rosendall [Rick corrects me, in the comments, that he's not a "Democratic activist," as I originally stated], political comrades including Log Cabiners Rich Tafel and Patrick Sammon. But there were also HRC activists who, over a decade ago, I worked with canvassing for Clinton. Ouch. And on the way toward the door, someone called out, "Stephen, it's been a long time....." It was Mike Rogers, who has been in the news quite a bit of late and who I haven't spoken to in over a decade, but who, as much younger men, was once part of my "set."
You can't go home again, and I make no apologies for being critical, on a near-daily basis, of those who hold to a politics I can only term "reactionary liberalism." I must be true to my principles, as they stay true to theirs. But it's an odd sensation when one's past calls out and reminds you how connected we all are, despite how far apart we have become.
43 Comments for “Left/Right”
posted by Rhywun on
A one-man “outing” outfit doesn’t bother me nearly so much as the fact that the Idaho Statesman feels it necessary to conduct “months-long examinations” of someone’s sex life.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Small correction: I am a registered Democrat, but as an activist I have always focused on issues more than parties. That has tended to make me an “odd man out” among the party-centered activists who fill Washington, but it puts me in good company with my colleagues in GLAA, which has long been issue-centered. What little work I have done on campaigns has crossed party lines. For example, I have helped Republican D.C. Councilmember Carol Schwartz and Independent Councilmember (and former Republican) David Catania. So I don’t think most Democratic party activists would consider me one of them.
Anyway, the reception at the Smithsonian last evening was a really nice event, with a lot of gay movers and shakers and good food as well. Mike Rogers, whose “outing” tactics I oppose, is personally a pleasant fellow. He mentioned the next target on his list, another Senate Republican. I was a bit surprised at the amount of praise Rogers was getting from people at the reception, including one prominent Gay Republican. There was some awkwardness that Rogers himself acknowledged, as one of the GOP staffers whom he outed last year was standing a few yards away. I am aware of the amount of good intelligence the gay staffer network on the Hill has provided to our movement (something former HRC leader Tim McFeeley, who was there last evening, confirmed), which makes me particularly opposed to the outing of GOP staffers. When I pressed him, Rogers said he hates what he does, while adding that he thinks it’s necessary, and believes that it will substantially neutralize the Republicans’ anti-gay politics. We’ll see, but I just think that outing is creepy and contradicts the pro-gay cause by capitalizing on people’s homophobia.
Yesterday’s Washington Post had a thoughtful column by Marc Fisher questioning Rogers’s tactics: Who Among Us Would Cast the First Stone? This Guy.
posted by James on
But I don’t have anything in common with the gay community just because they are gay. We are not family, and I don’t have all my sisters with me. My faith and values are more fundamental to me than my sexuality. Therefore, I don’t see myself as having anything in common with those men, gay or straight, who choose to express their sexuality with multiple partners, open relationships, or serial monogamy. I don’t have to include such men in my rainbow if I don’t want to–I believe the Constitution guarantees freedom of association.
I am tired of being expected to jump in every gay parade. The fact that some guy and I love to see Brett Favre shirtless doesn’t mean we have anything fundamentally in common. I wouldn’t go to a Pride parade anymore than I would go to the Republican National Convention–they are not my people, and I’m tired of being forced to share politics with them.
posted by Brian Miller on
A hilarious quote from the Post article Richard linked to:
We are more reserved — timid, if you wish — more likely to wait for a crime and a legal record before we report on the private lives of public people.
Ah. This would be the same Washington Post that reported on:
1) Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades — both with regard to Gennifer Flowers and later, Monica Lewinsky?
2) Britney Spears’ sexual escapades (no “crime and legal record” there!)
3) Jack Welch’s little marital meltdown and affair?
I could go on if I wanted to, but “journalists” playing holier-than-thou with their sanctimonious judgments from on high are hilarious. As if they’re not every bit as political, arbitrary, and capricious as Rogers is.
posted by CPT_Doom on
Two things – Stephen is right to point out the debt all GLBT people owe to Kameny and all the early activists from the Mattachine Society and Daughters of Bilitis, as well as their associated magazines/newsletters One and the Ladder. If it were not for these brave souls, and their willingness to be the first out of the closet, we could not even have a political discussion among GLBT out in the open.
As for Marc Fisher’s column, one thing that so many straight people seem to miss is that social conservatives are not simply voting against gay marriage rights, or ENDA, as one might vote against a specific tax proposal. Rather they demonize, slander and dehumanize all GLBT people arguing that this one, largely irrelevant, feature of our personalities is enough to determine we are not capable of, and not worthy of, the full responsibilities of citizenship. It is the GOP and their social conservative allies who have made the argument that this aspect of our private lives should and must be used to make public judgements about us, irrespective of any other skills or abilities we might have. By doing that, these same conservatives have opened the door to their own private lives.
Yes, there is a double standard, and the GOP created it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Bullshit, CPT_Doom.
If that were what the outers cared about, they wouldn’t be supporting, endorsing, and pumping mountains of cash to this, this, or this.
This is no different than Maryland Democrats and Steve Gilliard calling Michael Steele an “Uncle Tom” and “Simple Sambo”, people calling Condi Rice “pouty brown sugar”, or Harry Belafonte calling Colin Powell a “house slave”, or the innumerable things hurled against Clarence Thomas; it is a campaign of hate to hunt down and punish those who have left the Democrat plantation and who oppose the Democrat massas, and it is paid for and supported by those selfsame massas. It has nothing to do with ensuring gay rights; it has everything to do with ensuring that gays continue to vote and cough up cash to the “right” people.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Except, ND30, that the Democratic Party overall has a far better record on gay issues than the GOP. Hilary Rosen’s calculation (and please notice that I am talking about her calculation and not my own) was that it was worth electing Harold Ford if that would help take control of the Senate away from the GOP. Personally, I could not stomach Ford, and in fact I cited those same plummeting HRC scores in a column last year to show his unscrupulousness. (Incidentally, I think the quick change in Ford’s voting record around the time he decided to run for the Senate shows that he is not homo-hating as Petrelis suggested, but merely unprincipled.) But although I disagree with Hilary Rosen in that I wouldn’t give a cent to Harold Ford, she is certainly right that we are better off with a Democrat-controlled Senate than a GOP-controlled Senate even if some of the votes in the Democratic caucus are from homophobes or people pandering to homophobes. Politics is a messy business.
That being said, ND30 has a valid point in that many such decisions are governed as much by partisan hackery as by the cause of gay equality. I would say that usually this is not the result of a conscious decision by people to be corrupt, so much as a gradual slide into making more and more excuses to do what is expedient. The result is the same, which is that keeping access to the powerful becomes more important than pushing for change, without which the access is of no use except to the career of the person selling out. This tendency of people to become co-opted by the establishment is why it is important to have an influx of new activists making life uncomfortable for those who have compromised too much. That is inevitably a subjective judgment; we can only hope that in the aggregate, we are moving in the right direction.
posted by JJason on
James, you do realize that you add to the problem by stepping out, right? I’m not convinced there is not place for you in the gay community, but I am convinced that you have given up, which is sad.
Just as gays had a problem within larger society because of a lack of visibility, so do gay conservatives have a problem within the larger gay community due to lack of visibility. How does a refusal to show up and be counted help resolve your issues? Surely you’re not content to let other people make the rules, to merely complain and do nothing?
You’re already on a gay website, the indegayforum, in some sense you are part of this community, which is part of the larger gay community. Isolating yourself from the rest of the gay community allows the problems you talk about to persist. The ideas and feelings to become more acceptable. In essence you are part of the problem.
NDT, I understand your first link, but I’m not sure what Kerry’s view on gay marriage or Dean’s assertion that Democrats have values have to do with the subject of Outing. I don’t think you mean to suggest Outers should be supporting, endorsing, or pumping mountains of cash into supporting a gay marriage ban that Kerry agrees with? And why would they send money to help Dean promote evangelism among Democrats? I’m sorta lost.
And where is your evidence that Outers don’t support worthy causes?
Call me crazy, but I don’t think the gay community should keep the secrets of those who spend a great deal of time preventing us from having basic rights, and taking away the ones we already have. If I changed my name in order to hide the fact that I’m Polish and then spent a great deal of time campaigning to have Polish people thrown out of their homes, fired, kept from adopting, kept from marrying other Polish people — you can bet, I would never be welcome at another family event and that my entire family would be broadcasting my birth certificate all over the place. I mean, what other group protects and provides comfort to it’s enemies?
And the Outers aren’t concerned with party. If there was a closeted Democrat who was voting against gay rights Bills and speaking out against homosexuality, you can bet they’d be Outed, too. If you have an example of someone they’re letting slide, I’d love to see it.
posted by MMMM on
I agree with Rosendall. Also, the links that ND30 provides to stories about Dean and Kerry aren’t really persuasive to me either. Kerry’s position was that states – not the federal government – should determine their future on gay marriage and that he personally is pro civil unions. I agree with the bottom up approach, I can see the merits of many state’s rights arguments, and his pro civil unions stance is a small step forward. As for Dean’s speech on CBN, he reached out to evangelicals but didn’t pander. He stated differences clearly and brought them closer to us in terms they could understand and perhaps even agree with. Decreasing abortions (without criminalizing the decisions of women and doctors) and including GLBTs fully in civil society (without redefining sacraments) are fresh ways to present those issues to that community.
posted by Brian Miller on
Kerry’s position was that states – not the federal government – should determine their future on gay marriage
Actually, Kerry’s position was that states — not the federal government — should BAN gay marriage. He was an outspoken proponent of most of the anti-gay state ballot amendments — most notably the Missouri amendment (which he later flip-flopped on after criticism that it would also ban civil unions) and the Massachusetts (failed) amendment.
His first major press conference after losing the election was held in the South, where he condemned his own state party’s decision to endorse gay marriage and called for Massachusetts residents to pass the recently-failed anti-gay marriage amendment.
Basically, Kerry’s position was a distinction without a difference — gay marriage should be banned by states rather than the federal government. He agrees with Mitt Romney that it should be illegal, he simply disagrees over which level of the bureaucracy should make it so.
posted by Brian Miller on
As for Dean’s speech on CBN, he reached out to evangelicals but didn’t pander.
Not only did he pander, but he lied — claiming that the Democratic Party’s platform talks about marriage being “between a man and a woman” (it doesn’t refer to marriage at all, as a matter of fact).
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But although I disagree with Hilary Rosen in that I wouldn’t give a cent to Harold Ford, she is certainly right that we are better off with a Democrat-controlled Senate than a GOP-controlled Senate even if some of the votes in the Democratic caucus are from homophobes or people pandering to homophobes.
Or, put differently, you don’t care if people are homophobes as long as they’re Democrats, and you don’t care about supporting homophobes as long as they’re Democrats.
I don’t think you mean to suggest Outers should be supporting, endorsing, or pumping mountains of cash into supporting a gay marriage ban that Kerry agrees with?
No, I am stating that they ARE supporting, endorsing, and pumping mountains of cash into this thing and others.
Which is why their hypocrisy and hate is so obvious.
As for Dean’s speech on CBN, he reached out to evangelicals but didn’t pander.
Uh huh.
He added, ?The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s what it says.
And before you start trying to equivocate that he said “equal rights” at the end, please realize that Democrat gays and leftist organizations like HRC have stated that anything BUT marriage is automatically unequal and antigay.
As for Kerry, I could agree with you if I hadn’t heard Arnold Schwarzenegger called hateful, homophobic, and evil for espousing exactly the same position.
If you have an example of someone they’re letting slide, I’d love to see it.
Gladly.
You see that? Mike Rogers (and John Aravosis) openly admitted that he was covering up for Democrats who voted against gay rights and their staffers so they could hold onto the seat.
posted by Brian Miller on
I have to come down with ND-30 on this one. It’s transparently obvious that Rogers and Aravosis are outing in a partisan fashion and will not out anti-gay Democrats who have supported anti-gay legislation while simultaneously indulging in steamy gay activity.
Aravosis and Rogers should just admit this, rather than keep up the “fair and balanced” farce. It’s just as hilarious seeing them try to pull it off as it is to see Bill O’Reilly trying to pull it off.
posted by Craig2 on
I am opposed to outing on principle. However, I tend to agree with you that antigay Democrats who have sex with men are just as vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy if caught in the act. Whether or not any such hypocrites should be exposed unless through their own foolishness, however, is a moot point.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Bobby on
James, do you want to have a boyfriend someday? Have you ever been with a man? That might be one thing you have in common with gays. And what’s wrong with serial monogamy? Finding a soulmate is not that easy.
“I am opposed to outing on principle.”
—Why? The lives of heterosexuals, who they date, who they sleep with, is widely covered in the media. If a politician or celebrity is secretely gay, why should he or she not be outed? Why should gays be given special treatment by the media?
We’re not special, we’re equals. And as equals we should be outed just like everyone else.
posted by James on
The worst part about coming out is having to be suddenly grouped together with a bunch of people I wouldn’t choose to associate with. I don’t like being forced into an alliance against my will. I didn’t like those people before, and I don’t like them now. “Oh, but you didn’t like them before because you were a self-loathing closeted gay man, and now that you’re out, you see what wonderful, courageous people they are!” Um, no–they’re still pretty much wierdos, even from here. Coming out is a personal journey of self-acceptance–it isn’t about suddenly having to let people in my life that have no right to be there.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30 wrote, “Or, put differently, you don’t care if people are homophobes as long as they’re Democrats, and you don’t care about supporting homophobes as long as they’re Democrats.”
ND30, I explicitly said that was NOT what I was saying. I specifically said I wouldn’t give a cent to Harold Ford. Why do you insist on going so overboard and being such a jerk? Rather than change the subject (as is your habit) and make accusations against me, why don’t you explain to us how the Democrats (for all their faults) are NOT better on gay issues than the Republicans? Or do you only allow for angels and devils? You must think everyone else is dimwitted, to persist in these lame arguing tactics.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Bobby wrote, “If a politician or celebrity is secretely gay, why should he or she not be outed?”
First of all, the only circumstance in which a legitimate case can be made for violating people’s privacy on this subject is when they are hypocrites and support anti-gay discrimination. But even then, our use of outing as a tactic capitalizes on people’s homophobia, which goes directly contrary to a gay-affirming purpose.
posted by Jorge on
I never could stand Mike Rogers.
But he does things. And outing isn’t the only thing he does. Most political junkies like myself are only a pale shadow of activists like him.
posted by kmwa on
These republicans and rightwingers assign all sorts of putrid adjectives to us and scream about the Constitution, but completely ignore its equality statements. I’m sick of it and them and their arrogant sel-righteousness. OUT the hypocritical sons of bitches. Ruin their friggin lives as they have so many of us. Screw civility.
posted by JimG on
I agree with Mr. Rosendall. Even in cases of hypocracy with elected officials, “our use of outing only capitalizes on people’s homophobia”. I always thought of it as throwing someone to the lions. It is vindictive, an act of revenge and immature.
As far as celebrities go, I’ve always felt that the only thing they owed me was a good performance for the price of a ticket. Everything else was their own business and what they chose to disclose or not was up to them.
Yes, it would be great if everyone came out, but coning to grips with one’s sexuality and then figuring out how to deal with it with other people is such an important and individual process that, I believe, no other person has the right to interfere with it.
We are supposed to be a society which prizes the individual. Outing destroys that ideal and subjugates the importance of each singular entity (each one of us) to the mentality of “the group”. Dangerous stuff.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30, I explicitly said that was NOT what I was saying. I specifically said I wouldn’t give a cent to Harold Ford.
What came after that was the problem, Richard (emphasis mine).
But although I disagree with Hilary Rosen in that I wouldn’t give a cent to Harold Ford, she is certainly right that we are better off with a Democrat-controlled Senate than a GOP-controlled Senate even if some of the votes in the Democratic caucus are from homophobes or people pandering to homophobes.
Rather than change the subject (as is your habit) and make accusations against me, why don’t you explain to us how the Democrats (for all their faults) are NOT better on gay issues than the Republicans?
That’s easy.
In 2004, Bush got very little support, financial or otherwise, from gay people because organizations like HRC argued that his position was “homophobic”.
In 2004, John Kerry got tens of millions of dollars in endorsements, support, cash, and time from gay people, including gushing endorsements from HRC as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” — despite his proudly stating that he had the “same position” as President Bush.
In 2004, gays screamed that the Republican Party platform was “homophobic”; then, just a year later, Howard Dean, similar beneficiary of time, talent, and tons of cash from gays as both a candidate and head of the Democrat Party, casually rewrote the Democrat Party platform to match it — and then fired, after a carefully-orchestrated trashing campaign with the gleeful assistance of other gay staffers, a gay person whose partner complained.
Therefore, Richard, the reason Democrats are no better is this; in exchange for meaningless words, gays allow them to pick your pockets dry, and then they go off and do the same things gays were criticizing Republicans for doing in the first place.
And what’s worse….gays let them do it over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Finally, and ironically:
Why do you insist on going so overboard and being such a jerk?
I quote:
This tendency of people to become co-opted by the establishment is why it is important to have an influx of new activists making life uncomfortable for those who have compromised too much.
I figure if you truly cared about stopping Rosen or Rogers, you could use all this influence and respect you claim to have to do so.
But something tells me that, if you did, you’d immediately have neither influence OR respect.
posted by ETJB on
(1) President Bush supported sodomy laws, opposed including sexual orientation to federal civil rights/hate crime laws, opposed gays in the military, opposed gays be anywhere near children, promopted abstience-only sex ed, and supported a Federal constitution amendment that would ban gay marriage and civil unions and even DP.
(2) In 2004 the ONLY VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO BUSH was KERRY. Yeah, that does suck and maybe LGBT people should be thinking about (gasp) campaign law reform. But until that happens LGBT Americans have two viable choices; GOP or Democrats.
Kerry supported the ENDA and the HCPA and opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment. That in itself made him light years beyond Bush (WE LIVE IN A TWO-PARTY SYSTEM PEOPLE).
This does not even begin to get into the United States Supreme Court; had Bush sr. won releection in 1992 or Bob Dole won in 1996, it is a fair bet to say that Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas might had a different result.
posted by Brian Miller on
LGBT Americans have two viable choices; GOP or Democrats
Endlessly repeating a cliche doesn’t make it true.
Democrats keep repeating the cliche that they’re the only choice for gay people, Republicans keep repeating the cliche that large stockpiles of WMDs were found in Iraq. Both are equally accurate.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oh please, ETJB.
The current executive director of HRC himself supported and endorsed FMA supporters. One of the leaders of HRC herself supported and endorsed FMA supporters, with the direct connivance of Andrew Tobias, DNC treasurer and Stonewall Democrats leader.
If you want to argue that anyone who supports the FMA is evil and antigay and should be reviled, you ought to clean up your own act first.
As for children and employment laws, that’s explainable; after all, in both cases, people claimed that complaints about them were “homophobic” because of their sexual orientation and thus against “nondiscrimination” laws.
In 2004 the ONLY VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO BUSH was KERRY.
Not so. Carol Moseley-Braun and Dennis Kucinich were both Democrats and both supported everything you wanted, including gay marriage.
After all, the only determination of whether or not a candidate is fit is their stance on gay rights, correct? After all, you claim that Republicans who consider things other than gay issues in voting are wrong, correct?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
So ND30 believes the Democrats are no better than the Republicans on gay issues, and that Carol Moseley-Braun and Dennis Kucinich were viable alternatives to Bush in 2004. Pathetic. Incidentally, ND30, I said the Democrats were BETTER on gay issues, not great. Not only have I criticized their lack of backbone, I noted the mixed records of several Democrats in the column last year in which I cited Harold Ford’s plummeting HRC scorecard ratings. But as usual you prefer to knock down straw men.
BTW, the gay vote was not monolithic in 2004; exit polls showed that roughly one-fourth of self-identified gay voters voted Republican. While I disagree with them, it is not based on some notion that only gay issues are relevant to my decision. I think Rudy Giuliani is a bully, for instance, and that has nothing to do with his positions on gay issues.
posted by Bobby on
You guys forget that until we keep treating homosexuality as something private that shouldn’t be discussed (by refusing to out gay celebrities), straight people will have a negative attitude about it. But when you out gay celebrities, you help straight people get used to gays, which makes homophobia (even among conservatives) decline.
If heterosexual celebrities can’t be allowed to keep their heterosexuality in the closet, neither should gay celebrities.
posted by Brian Miller on
So ND30 believes the Democrats are no better than the Republicans on gay issues, and that Carol Moseley-Braun and Dennis Kucinich were viable alternatives to Bush in 2004. Pathetic.
This is what goes for “analysis” in the Republicratic Party today. How depressing.
the gay vote was not monolithic in 2004; exit polls showed that roughly one-fourth of self-identified gay voters voted Republican.
The exit polls also indicated “landslide Kerry victories.” They’ve been unreliable for years — and as someone who works in marketing research, I can assure you that most “surveys” of gay people are crap because they ask gay people to self-identify (and many refuse out of general principle).
Thus, it’s not a good basis for comparison’s sake.
The reality is that whoever the most people vote for can win. If gay people worked hard for a Libertarian, or a Green, or Dennis Kucinich, or whoever, that person would be a serious contender. Howard Dean’s campaign is proof of that — from nothing to $50 million in the bank and top-tier status.
However, wannabe kingmakers brush off such initiatives as “ridiculous” — pushing the chosen establishment candidate until their (wo)man loses in a close general election. Then the rhetoric suddenly shifts back to “democracy” and the “will of the people” that they so caustically pooh-poohed only months earlier.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Brian wrote in response to my dismissive comment about Braun and Kucinich, “This is what goes for ‘analysis’ in the Republicratic Party today. How depressing.”
There is virtually no chance of changing someone’s mind who seriously considers those two people to have been viable presidential candidates. I have done a good deal of analysis, and have even been paid for it, but in this case it is plainly a waste of time.
Yes, whoever the most people vote for can win — and virtually nobody voted for those candidates. Naturally, you blame that on the “Republicrats.” If you can’t see the differences between the two major parties, you are self-blinded. The fact that I observe that the Republicans are much worse on gay issues than the Democrats is NOT, repeat NOT, to say that the Dems are great. But if the GOP’s peculiar combination of ruthlessness and recklessness during the past six years (on a range of issues going far beyond gay issues) has not made the difference clear to you, then you must be blinded by dogma.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard the DemocratDefender writes: “But if the GOP’s peculiar combination of ruthlessness and recklessness… has not made the difference clear to you, then you must be blinded by dogma.”
“blinded by dogma” is it Richard? That’s rich coming from you.
No, not blinded by dogma; I’d say they were informed by truth as a real patriot. No wonder the public doesn’t trust Democrats to handle national security, the war on terror or America’s standing in the world.
Come off the Democrat Plantation and think for yourself, Richard… like lots of our fellow gays are starting to do. Quit trying to defend your former Master at every turn… it’s ok to have a nonconforming thought. Honest. Brian thinks the Green or Libertarians are viable; good for him… at least he’s not in Kansas anymore.
posted by ETJB on
Brian; I am not stating a cliche, when I talk about our two-party system.
It is a system that I have studied and continue to do so. I know how the system works and the institutional barriers to an independent or third party candidate being viable alternative.
It is a system that prompted me to co-found the interest group Friends of Democracy to push for campaign law reforms in MN, ND and SD. I am also a member of Ballot Access News and Fair Vote MN.
I have often spoken here and elsewere about the need for LGBT Americans to show more interest in campaign law reform.
The reality is that Americas (irrespective of sexuality orientation) have two viable choices 99% of the time. The election result will be a victory for the Democrats (DFL, In MN) or the Republicans.
LGBT Americans, like other Americans have two viable choices; GOP or Democrats. I would be happy to talk about how this can (and should change), but to suggest that a Green, Libertarian, Socialist, etc. is as viable choice as the two major party candidates is akin to telling a black man in the 1950s American South that the state respects their voting rights.
Why? Because such an argument ignores the institutional discrimination that against citizens when it comes to their political rights.
We have come a long way when it comes to voting rights, but we have not come too far when it comes to candidate/party rights.
Both are equally important.
posted by ETJB on
An Independent/Third party candidate (voter) has to deal with real institutional problems;
(1) Ballot Access/Party Registration Laws – AKA Petition drives from hell.
(2) Exclusion of I/TP candidates from major debates and candidate forums. I gotten into some tense verbal fights with PBS about this. 😉 Public can be pretty decent to I/TP candidates, but public tv much like the general media is iffy, at best.
(3) The usage of S-M-D-P-V in legislative districts. The Congressional ban on a state using PR in its Congressional elections. (Something that should outrage conservative-state’s rights gays).
(4) IRV is gaining some ground in city elections and that is a good thing. Something that should be supported.
posted by Jason on
“he worst part about coming out is having to be suddenly grouped together with a bunch of people I wouldn’t choose to associate with.”
That’s life. I doubt all heterosexuals are above critique.
” I don’t like being forced into an alliance against my will.”
Who’s forcing you? Seriously, who?
” I didn’t like those people before,”
who are “those people”, out proud homosexuals? I’m one, you’ve never met me. Do you already have an opinion of me, just because I’m Out?
Or are you talking about obnoxious people? There is a difference between being Out, and being obnoxiously Out. Is there only one way to light a match, cut a cake, put on a pair of pants? Why should there be only one way to Come Out or be Out?
” and I don’t like them now. “Oh, but you didn’t like them before because you were a self-loathing closeted gay man, and now that you’re out, you see what wonderful, courageous people they are!” Um, no–they’re still pretty much wierdos, even from here.”
In my experience those that claim to be normal, rarely are. Normal is a pretty subjective term.
” Coming out is a personal journey of self-acceptance–it isn’t about suddenly having to let people in my life that have no right to be there.”
And who’s telling you otherwise? Seriously, you should stop listening to people with bad ideas. You should also stop letting them frame the discussion for you.
I also noticed that you’re making some bold generalizations. In fact, they’re so bold and so general, I’m not even sure who you’re talking about.
posted by Brian Miller on
There is virtually no chance of changing someone’s mind who seriously considers those two people to have been viable presidential candidates.
Well, you’re right about that, Richard — you’re a shining exhibit A of those folks.
However, a significant proportion of people who do bother to vote are open minded — as are a majority of those who don’t show up at the polls because of the closed-minded faux-pragmatism you’re parroting here.
Those folks have done lots of surprising things — like put Ross Perot in the lead in 1992 up to the moment he dropped out of the race, and elevate a little-known governor from Vermont from a candidate with less money and support than the Kucinich campaign you bash with such relish up to the top tier of the Democrats’ candidate pool (and into a post as head of the DNC).
In fact, that which you say is impossible happens quite regularly — and with increasing frequency.
So, those LGBTQ people who want to subscribe to your grey and dreary defeatism are welcome to go shill for Hillary, Barack or Rudy. . . just don’t lecture the rest of us about your candidate’s “superiority” or “viability.”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Brian,
If my long record of activism and writing honest-to-God resembles “dreary defeatism” (as distinct from it being easier to toss out a cheap phrase than consider my actual views) then so be it. But that’s about as valid as the Republicans calling war critics defeatists for pointing out Bush’s disastrous failure.
Brian wrote, “In fact, that which you say is impossible happens quite regularly — and with increasing frequency.”
Tell me which of the examples you cited got elected.
posted by Brian Miller on
my long record of activism and writing honest-to-God resembles “dreary defeatism”
I’ve come to expect dramatic flourishes from you, citing your endlessly long record of blah-blah-blah whenever I deign to disagree with your drearier points, but I’ve gotta say that even Pavlov would be getting a bit bored by this.
Try addressing the text that I quoted and referred to (which you wrote), rather than engage in playing the victimhood schtick. It’s most unbecoming.
posted by Brian Miller on
Brian wrote, “In fact, that which you say is impossible happens quite regularly — and with increasing frequency.”
Tell me which of the examples you cited got elected.
Whoa, way to raise the bar! Now we’re going from “viable” to “elected.”
You’ve sorta jumped in a lobster trap of your own making here. After all, many of the Democrats who you, yourself, promoted in prior elections as “viable” went down to defeat, including Al Gore and John Kerry. I’m sure you’d take umbrage at the idea that they weren’t “viable” and that you were unrealistic for supporting them — despite the fact that they were all losers.
Kinda sucks when you’re held to your own standards, you know!
posted by ETJB on
“Those folks have done lots of surprising things — like put Ross Perot in the lead in 1992 up to the moment he dropped out of the race.”
(1) Perot had little interest in creating a new political party or doing much besides creating his own little conservative-populist personality cult.
(2) Most Independent and third party candidates are not billionares who have lots of money to spend getting past the first hurdle; ballot access.
(3) Howard Dean was running as a Democrat, which is one of the two-major political parties. Hence he did not have to face much of what Independent and third party candidates have to deal with.
(4) “Candidate viability” is a comment on how LAWS in OUR ELECTORAL process and not on whether or not I would vote for a particular candidate. People who bitch about how unfair the system is to other candidates (and do nothing) or who hold themselsf as the ‘perfect’ candidate because they are ‘independent’ are the ones who subscribe to “grey and dreary defeatism.”
posted by Brian Miller on
You haven’t refuted any of my points.
1) Ross Perot established the Reform Party, which received federal matching funds as a result of the success of his campaign. Had he not dropped out of the 1992 race and later re-entered, it’s possible he’d have received a plurality of the popular vote. So much for pronouncements of “viability.”
2) You keep bringing up this point like it’s somehow relevant. It isn’t. Both the Green and Libertarian parties have the financial and volunteer resources to appear on most, or every, state ballot.
3) Howard Dean had less support than Kucinich — perhaps as little as Gravel — when his campaign started. He was the epitome of the “non-viable candidate.” Just as Perot blew the doors off of the “non-Dem/Rep candidates aren’t viable,” Dean’s campaign blew the doors off of the “dark horse major candidates cannot be viable.” In both cases, it’s the wannabe kingmakers who are incorrect.
4) There’s absolutely no law that prevents a national political party or independent candidate with enough support from winning the presidency. If the Green or Libertarian party candidates receive enough votes in 2008, they could win electoral votes and thus the presidency. The only thing standing in their way is a resolute commitment by status-quo apologists who prevent them from participation in debates, and media kingmakers. The latter are becoming less relevant, but the former are quite willing to ignore the law when it suits them. Bush and Kerry, for instance, ignored a federal court order to open the 2004 debates to the Green and Libertarian candidates — without a penalty. People who defend such a system by citing the “law” are nonsensical — the Republicrats regularly ignore the law, including court orders, in these matters.
posted by Amicus on
I must be true to my principles, as they stay true to theirs.
——
Just to share views.
One thing that is hard – very hard – for a lot of people, from what I can gather, is just how that is done.
How is it that conservative views, say, on teachers’ unions, is more important than what most view as the core of their social-emotional well-being, linked as that is to sexuality, their partner(s), and the social recognition of those things?
Now, one could adopt view that they are the resistance from within the Conservative party, but then how is that done from >inside< the closet, exactly? By behind-the-scenes solidarity, as Richard alludes to? Even if one cut out a space for not becoming a 'single-issue' voter, say, it's still hard to imagine how other political affiliation issues top gay rights issues.
posted by Amicus on
btw, I’m not saying there are no good answers to those questions. My hope was simply to offer a perspective on where people seem to having the most difficulty understanding each other.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Hey Stephen, I give YOU a lot of credit for stopping and chatting with MikeRogers.
If I had been in your shoes and given the chance to level his playing field, I think Mikey would still be in recovery at hospital. That sleazebag gutterscum has done more harm to gay civil rights than virtually any ultra-hated religious right redneck reverend.
MikeRogers makes the antics of MoveOn.org look sane by comparison.
posted by ETJB on
Your point? That Independent and third political parties are magically viable, because you want them to be?
Ross Perot was not a viable candidate. (1) The popular vote not matter in Pres. elections. (2) He kept dropping in and out of the race. (3) He built the party the second time he ran and it quickly fell apart.
Ballot Access law is a serious issue to anyone who cares about free and fair elections. If you think it is not an important issue, then you need a reality check.
Howard Dean and Kucinish were both running as MAJOR PARTY candidates. The electoral law (and this viability) changes drastically.
“There’s absolutely no law that prevents a national political party or independent candidate with enough support from winning the presidency.”
“Enough support?” You seem totally oblivious to how the electoral law really works. Viability is largely dependent on the legal & social rules governing an election. Until you change the rules, the two-party cartel is not going anywhere.
I have never ‘defended’ the election law. In fact, their is a great deal about campaign law that I oppose. Had you bothered to read my statements (instead of just pipping up your party line) you will note that I been working to change the system.