A survey of self-identifying gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans conducted by Hunter College and funded by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) shows that respondents 18-25 years old said marriage and adoption rights were the top gay issues, while those 65 years and older said laws regarding hate crimes and workplace discrimination were most important. However, altogether only 59% know there's no federal law that bars workers from being fired based on their sexual orientation. If anti-gay discrimination in the workplace were as big an issue as some activists claim, one would think that figure would be much higher.
Generally, efforts toward ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and securing rights for transgender people scored the lowest in the poll. Which points to a rather large gap between the trans-inclusive agenda of many LGBT activists and the folks they claim to represent.
It now appears likely that the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, which passed the House last fall without covering the transgendered, will not be brought up in the Senate this year. Many LGBT activists, such as the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, would rather have no law than a law that only protects gays and lesbians. Others, such as HRC, think the new Congress will be more likely to include transgender protections in the bill and that President Obama will be more likely to sign it. I personally doubt the former, and think the odds of a President Obama may currently be not much better than 50-50 given his increasingly obvious disingenuousness.
In other political news, the Washington Blade reports
that HRC and the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund are not supporting
openly gay Democratic Senate candidate Jim Neal of
North Carolina in his primary fight (one poll puts him even with
the Democrat who has the backing of the national party).
I understand that the party to which HRC and the Victory Fund have
pledged fealty believes that a straight Democrat has a better
chance of ousting incumbent GOP Sen. Liddy Dole. But if we are not
for our own, who will be for us?
More. I never said that gay Republicans should support Neal. My point is that gay Democrats and supposedly nonpartisan LGBT political groups, especially those whose mission is to promote gay equality and/or to elect out-and-proud gay candidates (as is the Victory Fund's), are putting fealty to the Democratic party above all else (so what's new?). I liked Neal's response, "Maybe I'm not gay enough. I don't know."
As for ENDA, I recently explained my view here.
Update. Down to defeat, as reports EdgeBoston:
but some gay and lesbian leaders are questioning whether a losing candidate deserved more support from GLBT equality organizations.
Neither The Human Rights Campaign nor the Victory Fund supported the campaign of openly gay candidate Jim Neal, and the Democratic Party itself, far from supporting Neal, reportedly recruited winning candidate Kay Hagan, a NC state legislator, to run against him.
Gay voters are a cheap political date for the Democrats-a little sweet talk and nothin' else required.
27 Comments for “Mind the (Political) Gap”
posted by Amicus on
altogether only 59% know there?s no federal law that bars workers from being fired based on their sexual orientation.
Actually, one would be surprised it is that high. Would it be wrong to think that people assume that they are protected, until they find out they are not?
posted by Bobby on
Nobody’s protected from discrimination, it’s all subjective, nowadays when people get fired, they’re not even told why they’re being fired, they’re not given reasons or any letters that can be used to be former employee to sue their employer. I’m talking from personal experience, maybe I deserved to be fired for my performance, maybe they saw me checking guys out on craiglist at work, which I thought it was perfectly fine since the breeders check out women at match.com, and chat on AOL messenger, and I wasn’t looking at guys all day long.
Maybe the Employee Non-Discrimination Act could create some goodwill towards gays (or backlash), but that’s all it’s gonna do.
In the end, anyone who works for a corporation is a slave, my best friend is already working 9 to 6, and now his boss wants him to come on saturday, and work more hours. He wants my friend to come at 8:00 a.m. and leave at 8:00 p.m. or 9:00 p.m. And unlike other employees, he makes a salary, not an hourly wage. So why the hell do we need an Employee Non-Discrimination Act when we’re already discriminated against and treated like crap? Where was big government when I had to carry heavy tables so my stupid former boss could have breakfast with his big shot clients? Or the time the office moved and I had to act the part of a mover just so the bastard could save a few bucks? Bucks he certainly didn’t share with his willing slaves. Yeah, you work your ass off, you give up your weekends, the company makes more money, your boss takes an expensive vacation in Venice. And then when he’s supposed to order lunch for the team because you’re working on a weekend, does he order from the best restaurant? Does he let you get a $25 entree? Hell no. He ends up ordering pizza or Subway, which are great places when you’re spending your own money, but a company should do better, specially when they’re making millions and can afford it.
And by the way, there’s still gender discrimination, now it’s against men. All the time I’ve seen HR assholes ask men to do the heavy lifting. Sure, women can serve in the army but God help us if HR allows them to carry a goddam table.
.So congress can pass any laws they want, it doesn’t matter, unless you have your own business, you’re fucked.
posted by KamatariSeta on
Are there any figures on how many people were fired for being gay in the past few years as opposed to twenty years ago? Thirty? Maybe with social attitudes progressing the problem is being solved by a means other than legislation?
posted by austinpal on
Mr. Miller, ironically, is quick to jump on the extreme left’s bandwagon when it comes to Jim Neal.
posted by Another Steve on
I have no idea what autinpal means. Jim Neal is a Wall Street investor opposed by the party’s liberal stalwarts. And Miller’s point is that there is merit in supporting openly gay candidates even if their chances of ousting GOP incumbents are less. austinpal mistakes insults for thoughts.
posted by Jorge on
But if we are not for our own, who will be for us?
Well I suppose since you regularly caricature liberal-leaning gay activist groups as such slaves of identity politics this is a little surprising.
the gay Democrats you caricature as such slaves of identity politics probably should support this guy
Personally I would not be very eager to follow in the footsteps of the Obama campaign, which is gaining over 90% of the black vote in some states. That’s a little creepy, even more so when you look at the questions that have been raised about the character of some of Obama’s associates.
Obama of course is a traditional liberal politician who has a grand vision about improved race relations that acknowledges blacks/African Americans, so it’s a little justified. Why does this guy Neal deserve a gay person’s vote?
posted by another steve on
Why does this guy Neal deserve a gay person’s vote?
Because it advances gay visibility. Because it’s good to have role models. Because it counters ignorance and stereotypes. Because it opens doors. Because…
posted by Jorge on
Well who is he that he is a role model? All I know about him is that he’s an openly gay Democrat politician. That doesn’t tell me much. I’d want to know what he’s about.
Personally, out of the handful of openly gay politicians I’m aware of (all Democrats), about half of them aren’t special enough to be role models, and I think they’re generally about as ignorant and stereotypical as the rest. As for opening doors, well, they’re liberal so that’s what they’ll try to do…
posted by Patrick (gryph) on
If we were smart, we would pour all our efforts into repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.
In terms of moving a culture foward, integrating the Armed Forces brought black Americans closer to true racial equality and cultural inclusion than any civil rights march did. It can do much the same for gays and lesbians.
While I was reading a fund-raising letter from the LA community youth center, it struck me that for gay and lesbian kids that have been kicked out of their home, that the military could really provide a lot of benefits in terms of self-sufficiency and maturity. Its sad that that avenue of opportunity is closed to them.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Political “gap” it is, indeed, Stephen. Good piece. But even in the face of that persuasive caution, we still have folks in our community more interested in THEIR pet issue than working to secure REAL progress.
Like when Patrick offers: “If we were smart, we would pour all our efforts into repealing (DADT)”.
And, “… integrating the Armed Forces brought black Americans closer to true racial equality and cultural inclusion than any civil rights march did.”
I’d say that for most gays, DADT isn’t a big a concern and it sure isn’t for young gays -but it IS a terrific political tool for the Left to use against moderates, the military and conservatives. Pouring the gay community’s resources into repealing that policy would be stupid, not smart, since a very small portion of the gay community serves in the military and even smaller percentage support the military, the military culture or the use of might to adjust our intern’l opponents’ views of reality.
Better use would be to expand gay civil rights on issues like survivorship, health care insurance, SS benefits access, medical care decisions, equality on federal tax credits for partners, adoption provisions, etc. Ditch DADT. Ditch gay marriage in lieu of civil unions. Ditch more funding for AIDS in 3rd world countries.
As for integration of the military somehow bringing about a sea-change in America’s discriminatory attitudes toward minorities, it didn’t but it helped HarryTruman win an election that year against Dewey.
Few in the civil rights community argue that HarryT’s election-eve posturing did more than win him a narrow election. The sea change came after Dr King’s series of marches against racial tyranny and bigotry -exactly what Patrick(gryph) tries to deny. Marches, not election-eve posturing.
Let’s get about the business of securing meaningful progress on REAL civil rights for gays and drop the issues that help self-interested gay “rights” groups whip-up more contributions and outrage.
posted by akn on
@michigan-matt: I would argue that money spent on AIDS treatment and prevention in 3rd world countries (especially countries with neglected or persecuted LGBT populations like Kenya or Vietnam) would do much more good in terms of tangibly improving and even saving people’s lives than all the money that’s been spent (and will continue to be spent) on the Iraq war.
As for Jim Neal, I think it’s shameful for gay groups(especially for the Victory Fund!) not to support him only because of speculation about his chances at winning. Did they ever consider that their endorsements might bring him to the attention of and improve his standing among LGBT voters (like Jorge) who just don’t know that much about him?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
akn, I gather that you would argue exactly that point.
I’d argue as a community, we should focus our assets and strategies on securing domestic civil rights FIRST. If you want to send anything left over after you pay your taxes to UncleSam, I’ll get you the names of 3-4 dozen charities involved in assisting 3rd world countries with their AIDS problem… since the govts in those countries seem unwilling or unable to rise above the corruption, greed and petty avarice that compells their world’s political agenda.
Focus, akn. It’s one of the tangential cautions in Stephen’s piece about minding the political gap on issues of import within our community.
Focus.
I’ll skip the gratiutious and unnecessary Democrat Party slam on waging a responsible and prudent WOT in Iraq. Frankly, I’d say we’ve done more positive there than all the years of waste evident in the Great Society -or the Democrats’ war in VietNam.
posted by Rob on
Pouring the gay community’s resources into repealing that policy would be stupid, not smart, since a very small portion of the gay community serves in the military and even smaller percentage support the military, the military culture or the use of might to adjust our intern’l opponents’ views of reality.
Wait a sec, by an even smaller percentage support the military, you mean that there’s some gay serving in the armed forces that don’t support the military?
Anyway I wonder what really caused the gay political movement in America to turn against the military. If you look at the UK, they already have service members marching in uniform in pride events, as well as having a fighter aircraft on a float. Gay folks seem to appreciate them there.
posted by Rob on
I’ll skip the gratiutious and unnecessary Democrat Party slam on waging a responsible and prudent WOT in Iraq. Frankly, I’d say we’ve done more positive there than all the years of waste evident in the Great Society -or the Democrats’ war in VietNam.
More positive? Dude, they’re adding Sharia to their constitution, and the takbir that Hussein added to the flag is still there. The Sunnis have gone more tribal. The Shi’ites have banded into Iran supported militias, and many of them have murdered gays already. The largest mistake that the US has ever committed in this war was that it did not author the constitution of Afghanistan and Iraq, just like it did for Japan. Secularization and education reform should have been given top priority.
Quite frankly, the war in Iraq was a waste of resources. Over a trillion for a bunch of barbaric tribes and militias. Some positive there.
posted by Bobby on
“Anyway I wonder what really caused the gay political movement in America to turn against the military.”
—They’re aligned with the left, the military has always been dominated by the right. There are very very few straight left wingers in the military. Almost everyone in the military is a republican.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Rob asks but gets it wrong “Wait a sec, by an even smaller percentage support the military, you mean that there’s some gay serving in the armed forces that don’t support the military?”
Sorry for your confusion; I meant that a small percentage of gays in our community serve in the military –but, from the DADT repeal advocates, you’d think the entire gay population has served at some point in their lives or it’s the only upwardly mobile way to climb out of the gay trailer park ghetto. I went on to point out that an even smaller percentage of the total gay community supports the military –for the reasons Bobby rightly points out.
posted by Bobby on
The irony, Michigan, is that I do support repeal of DADT, but even with that view, I admit it takes a very special kind of gay to survive an environment where you might get dirty with mud, you will get screamed at by everyone, you will have to use a toilet without the privacy of a stall, use public showers, put up with all kinds of horseplay, including “branding,” the fact that the entire platoon might be punished for your mistakes, etc.
I support the military, but even if I was straight, I would have reservations about joining.
Besides, what’s stopping gays from forming their own militias, hunting clubs even a paint ball leagues? Gays into guns/military are as rare as gays into rugby or football.
What gays are usually into is the gym, even me. What the straight world needs to know is that there are some gays who are capable of serving in the military just as well as their counterparts in the military, and it costs thousands, perhaps millions, to discharge more than 1000 gay soldiers a year. But then again, this is the same military that used to buy $500 toilet seats , so maybe they don’t care about wasting millions of dollars in human resources.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Bobby, nothing ironic about it. The point is that the gay community has been hijacked by groups of activists who are only interested in advancing identity politics instead of real civil rights progress for gays.
It’s why there’s a virtual internet industry around the “evils” of DADT or the “oppression” of transgendered youth seeking medical options or -well- you name the hot issue of the day for identity politics.
My point is that repealing DADT shouldn’t be the gay community’s #1 issue by ANY measure… we ought to be about the business of gaining real civil rights, fair tax treatment for partners, control over medical decisions, etc.
posted by Patrick on
Michigan-Matt, every advocacy group practices identity politics to a great extent because it is what helps them promote policy alternatives, ideas, draw people together and press for change. Gay conservatives do it with patriotism and the war on terror. Gay liberals do it by projecting that society is victimizing them. Democrats do it as much as Republicans as much as Libertarians as much as Green Party supporters.
I agree that we ought to be pushing for true civil rights (scratch gay marriage if we can have civil unions) and many changes in the Social Security laws, federal tax code, partner bill of rights, denial of insurance coverage and more.
We all practice identity politics. Even on the internet. To say we don’t is to ignore one of modern day’s reality. Or did I misunderstand your point?
posted by Denis Dison on
Stephen Miller’s claim that the Victory Fund’s endorsements are somehow dictated by the Democratic party is absolutely baseless. Our endorsement decisions have nothing to do with Senator Schumer’s grand plans, and everything to do with our established, public endorsement criteria (http://www.victoryfund.org/run_for_office/endorsementcriteria) and extensive vetting of applicants.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Oh Denis, turn off that fog machine!
Victory Fund hasn’t veered substantially from the Democrats’ preferred pathway or course for a long, long time. This is just another case in point.
Now, go turn off that fog machine now that we’ve cleared the air.
posted by Denis Dison on
Michigan-Matt: One guesses the “Democrats’ preferred pathway” doesn’t include battling the party to get our candidates through their primaries, endorsing Republican candidates or working with the Log Cabin Republicans to train their members to run for office. We’ve done, and continue to do, all those things. It helps to know what you’re talking about before hurling accusations.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Denis, dear… helping the LCRs was dependent on the LCRs continuing to flame against Bush and the GOP. When they stopped doing that, the LibertyFund munchkins took their marbles and went home and the LCRs returned to their marginal GOP roots. There was an entire thread here recenlty devoted to the notion that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”… you should read it.
As is noted in the piece above, you guys aren’t supporting gay candidates when the your plantation master Democrat leaders instruct you to do otherwise… case made, point not disputed.
The funny thing is that you feel you need to defend the Liberty Fund as something other than the water-toting, bag carrying, Yessu’masta boi of the Democrat Party.
You should be proud of your organization’s singular dedication to keeping the gay vote in the Democrat hands. You’ve been at for a long time now… to claim otherwise is just silly and deceptive. Oh wait, deception is one of your sharpest tools in the toolbox, right?
That and well-fed fog machine?
posted by Charles Wilson on
Poor Michigan-Matt, who poses as a “moderate” when in fact he’s just a common wingnut. Who thinks gay whores like are “bargain priced” at $200-$250 per, um, appointment. Woof. Damn. Says Michigan Matt.
Hey MM, is that what your buddy Larry Craig would say too? Come on, ‘fess up!
posted by Bobby on
Hey Charles,
Michigan Matt is a moderate, he likes John McCain and doesn’t like the extremists in the GOP, which I do.
As for Matt Sanchez, if you really supported diversity, you wouldn’t mind a conservative who also does porn and prostitutes himself. Everyone has the right to make a living. Funny how liberals preach tolerance and diversity but fail to see it when it hits them right in the face.
Why should the rich be the only ones making money? Why should they be the only ones that can afford a $520+ room at The Setai in South Beach, or a condominium in Vail, Colorado?
Is Matt Sanchez stealing from anyone? Is he selling drugs? No, he’s just getting compensated for the pleasure of his company. The same thing many women do, except that they can legally marry their sugar daddies, divorce them or wait until they die, and end up with a big cut. Matt Sanchez can’t do that, even when a gay man has a sugar daddy, the old bastard can get tired of you and leave you with nothing.
Perhaps you should try to have a little more empathy for people.
posted by Jon Rauch on
Mr. Miller:
The Victory Fund’s endorsement decisions have absolutely nothing to do with the desires of any political party. We endorse against party picks all the time. Indeed, in 2006 we fought the Alabama Democratic party over the election of Alabama State Rep. Patricia Todd, the state’s first-ever openly LGBT elected official. In 2007 we fought the Democratic establishment in Pittsburgh and helped elect Bruce Kraus to the Pittsburgh City Council.
Our endorsement decisions are necessarily private because it is not fair to applicants to publicly air our evaluations of their campaigns, particularly when we decide not to endorse. The decision not to endorse any particular candidate is the result of the same application and evaluation process every candidate goes through, and our endorsement criteria are public.
Thank you.
–Denis Dison
VP, External Affairs
Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund
[Posted by the Editors]
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Bobby, thanks for the assist and speaking the truth.
I’m sorry to offer that your kind gesture may now place YOU into the gaze and aim of our trollish Mr Wilson.