A report in LA Weekly, California GOP: The Queer Enablers of Gay Marriage, highlights why the "all LGBT eggs (and votes, and money) in the Democratic Party basket" (or else you must be a "self-loathing" rich white gay jerk) is and always was partisanship gone wild:
[GOP Gov. Pete Wilson] appointed Judge Ronald M. George to the California State Supreme Court. Nearly 17 years later, the moderate Republican jurist would become a national gay hero. Last Thursday, it was George's carefully written majority opinion that legalized same-sex marriage in California. By nightfall...gay activists stood on a stage and publicly lauded the judge as "courageous." Speaker after speaker also praised another Republican, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, for promising to "fight" against a November ballot measure that could still outlaw gay marriage in the Golden State. ...
When Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in last week's historic case and a gay-rights advocate for more than 40 years, realized many months ago that the California State Supreme Court was jammed with Republicans, she was anything but fearful. "I was thrilled," she says. "I thought we'd stand more of a chance. I think a Democratic court might have shied away because of the issue of the (presidential) election."
As I never tire of pointing out, our national LGBT groups are largely staffed by activists with close ties to the Democratic Party, and much of their top leadership ranks flow back and forth from positions within the party itself (with an eye kept on possible low to mid-level positions in the next Democratic administration). That would be fine if these groups presented themselves as partisans targeting LBGT money and votes on their party's behalf, but they don't.
Yep, It's Groundbreaking
Semi-related, Laura Bush and daughter Jenna last week taped a segment on The Ellen DeGeneres Show (expected to air this coming Wednesday), discussing their new book. Ellen is a California resident, and following the California Supreme Court's marriage ruling she announced her engagement to longtime girlfriend Portia de Rossi.
Ponder
that for a moment: A conservative Republican First Lady going on a
chat show with a famous lesbian who's just announced she's going to
get married?
And now, this just in: The AP reports that "President Bush's newly married daughter, Jenna Hager, seemed to offer her family's Texas ranch to Ellen DeGeneres as a wedding location."
I think this is just another sign that the religious right is losing on all fronts, and that their initiatives to ban marriage are just last stands in their retreat -last stands that may stay in state constitutions for a generation, alas, but still part of a general losing effort.
27 Comments for “Progress vs. Partisanship”
posted by tavdy on
This reminds me very much of what’s happened recently over here in the UK with the London mayoral elections.
The winner, Boris Johnson, is a Tory – the same group that held back LGBT rights for over a decade through Section 28 and other laws. Yet among Boris’s first acts as Mayor were the appointments of Richard Barnes as Deputy Mayor, Nicholas Boles as Chief of Staff, Brian Coleman as Chairperson of the Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, and Sir Simon Milton as Senior Advisor for Planning – all four are openly gay.
In a twist of irony, the newly elected Tory mayor may actually be better for London’s LGBT community (the largest in the EU) than his openly gay Lib-Dem opponent would have been!
posted by Richard on
Why only work with Democrats or Republicans? Could we not extend your argument to third parties such as the Libertarians and Greens? Indeed.
Some “moderate” or socially liberal Republicans in California may be ahead of their own party, but how much does that extend throughout the state or nation?
Yeah, younger Americans — in general — are less sexist and homophobic then their parents or grandparents.
Yet, these very same Republicans — county club Republicans as they were once called — basically gave up control of the party in 1980 (from social reactionaries) and have not shown much interest in taking over.
Also, I have personally seen gay Republicans be just as mean and partisan as gay Democrats. Communication and civility are a two way street and oftentimes people on both sides are not interested in either.
posted by Amicus on
I think this is just another sign that the religious right is losing on all fronts, ..
I take it as a sign that Ellen is, sadly, letting herself be used for propaganda purposes.
Laura Bush did *nothing* during her term to reach out. As First Lady, she’s on par with some of the biggest moral failures of out times.
Her position hasn’t changed. Like Nancy Reagan, who quipped about knowing her gay hairstylist, Laura Bush also says that she knows gays.
The Bushes are a national disgrace, no matter how cute and charming they seem.
posted by Pepe N. Johnson on
I think the LGBT community needs to reach out to create more dialogue with the Republican party and other non-Democratic voters.
While some folks will never take the time to listen to us, there are numerous others who will listen. When I have the chance to speak to a conservative group about Don’t ask, Don’t tell or any other gay-related topic, I am surprised at how many of them ask sincere questions because they simply don’t know and haven’t taken the time to learn.
The LGBT community, like any community, obsesses about itself. We taken knowledge of ourselves for granted and often fail to realize that others don’t know because they simply don’t care to know. And we assume their attitude is malicious when it is often not. They simply don’t care because they have something they feel is more important. When we “interrupt” them, we should be polite and help make them understand why fairness for gay Americans is fairness for all Americans.
posted by Richard on
There are many people within the LGBT community who do ‘outreach’ — some better then others.
Yet, I suspect that certain partisan gay Republicans have a dog in the fight, so to speak, and are less interested in outreach then in justifying their vote for McCain or Paul.
posted by Richard on
Yeah, the First Lady has not changed her views, although its anyone guess what they really are. Does she support any gay righs issue?
She used to be, if I recall, a Democrat and then probably changed when she got married. Sometimes she seems more moderate then her husband, other times more conservative.
Was she appearing on Ellen to make the party seem more moderate? Just as a generic p.r.? Deep rooted political beliefs? Who knows.
Basically, she been a ‘traditional’ first lady. Smile, look pretty, do some light charity. Nothing wrong with that, but its certainly to avoid alienating the socially conservative base.
posted by Perry on
Excellent article. We have a long road ahead. Ellen is BRILLIANT!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Stephen, interesting article reminding us of how partisanly DEMOCRATic the gay community remains, even in light of the GOP judges in the CA decision, the GOP Govs who appointed them, the GOP gov who came out quickly after the decision to reinforce the GOP judges’ ruling, etc.
Richard and others here prove again that the gay community is intensely partisan and relish their long-standing water-carrier role for the Democrats… it has always been so, it will always be so I am afraid -no matter what any GOP group does to advance gay civil rights.
For those highly partisan gay Democrats, fealty to the Party trumps loyalty to their community’s cause of civil rights. And it’s why so many gay blogs commenting on this issue can’t seem to find the voice or integrity to credit those who stepped up to the plate in this instance.
At least those partisan gay Democrats are predictable in putting Party before community interest.
posted by Richard on
MM, the amount of partisan prejudice you have is really amazing. It is also not based on reality.
Americans can be really partisan, even to the point of utter meanness and malice. Gay people are no different, although it would be nice if they were.
There are LGBT interest groups for both major parties, and several minor ones. I seen and met gay Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Greens, Socialists and Communists.
In Federal elections, roughly 70% of the gay people, who vote and tell a poll worker, support the Democrats. This is probably because federal Republicans tend to be hostile.
How many moderate or liberal Republicans run the show in Wash DC?
Also, if you want to get more gays to vote GOP, then your personal attacks and malice is probably not going to be very effective.
In the free marketplace of ideas, most gay voters do not seem to trust the Republican Party or its candidates. Is that their fault or the fault of the Grand Old Party?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Their fault.
Because gay and lesbian voters will happily vote for and endorse as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” candidates who oppose gay marriage, as they are doing now with Hillary and Obama, and who support state and Federal constitutional amendments banning it, as they did with John Kerry, Harold Ford, and Inez Tenenbaum.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, the article that Stephen posted here was about how the upper tier of gayLeft activist groups and the DNC are only separated by a revolving door… and that’s being generous to them.
You were the one to take the thread in your typical direction of scorn of GOPs, including the 1st Lady. Not me. You.
Partisan gays have indeed put the interest of our community second and massaging their egos while being part of the Pink Cosmo swilling crowd at DNC events… that’s why we still have DOMA and DADT almost 2 years after our “supposed” gay-friendlies in the Democrat Party gained control of Congress and did… what… to help gays? Hmmm, zilch.
Now the Democrat mantra is “trust us, we’ll do something for gays after we get reelected and Obama is Prez”. Ummm, sure. Sure they will; the GayLeft just keeps telling gays “Vote Democrat because the Dems really like us… they just can’t show it… oh, quick, look over there, it’s James Dobson and the homphobes.”
The article was about how gay activists and Democrat activists are partisanly intent on the same goals… not how you think the GOP can win back all those disaffected gays.
The simple truth remains, gays like you can’t even acknowledge that it was CA GOPers who brought about the CaSupCt decision… and it’ll likely be moderate and progressive GOPers in CA that are the decisive block of voters who lend a hand to defeat the Nov DOMA-CA initiative.
But nice try at spinning, there, Richard.
I think you spin because you don’t like the article’s topic: “Progress v. Partisanship”, no?
posted by Pat on
The reason why more gay persons support Democrats over Republicans is because the voting record on gay issues is still, in general, much better than Republicans. All one has to do is look at the breakdown of votes such as FMA and ENDA. Yes, I agree that many people are blindly partisan, and won’t even consider when there are gay friendly GOP and acknowledge them. I certainly do, and applaud persons like Judge George.
And when people support Democrats Kerry, Ford who are anti-gay on some issues, etc., it’s usually because they are less anti-gay than their candidate. One can argue whether you still should give money to that candidate, and whether it’s useful as a strategy as a way of making sure the even more anti-gay opponent doesn’t win. And I do believe that HRC and other gay organizations give endorsements to candidates with anti-gay positions, that they clearly state their opposition to the anti-gay positions and that their endorsement is more of wanting the opponent to not win.
The reality is that gay equality is not going to come from the Democrats alone. It’s a good start, IMO, but eventually we’ll need more Republicans to get on board. It’s good to see that it’s starting.
As for the semi-related part, it buttresses my belief that privately, Pres. Bush is not anti-gay. That he is not ignorant when it comes to homosexuality (I did not believe Bush in the 2004 debate when he didn’t know whether or not homosexuality is a choice). And despite his condescending answer to whether or not homosexuality is a sin, that he does not believe that it is. It’s too bad that he didn’t have the courage of a leader to state what I believe he knows as the truth, but had to pander to a still not insignificant portion of his base.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat, fairly said all in all.
I know -don’t “think”- KNOW, that neither George W nor his Dad are anti-gay. I recall a moment in Dec 2000, after his election, when he was meeting in Crawford with Cheney, Powell and a few others and the press were invited in for a photo-op.
One of the reporters asked if gays would be allowed to serve in his Administration and he said, without a moment’s hesitation, that of course they would be and, further, “there’ll be no litmus test for people working in the Executive Office either”.
W’s statement came on the heels of some Dobsonite type opining that the incoming Administration would be different than the Clinton’s because gays wouldn’t be running the WH. I can’t find who made the stupid comment nor which press person asked the prez-elect that question, but what I do remember is the look in W’s eyes… sincere, candid, honest and surprised that someone would think being gay would exclude a person from service in his Administration.
posted by Richard on
No, gay people are voting for which of the two major party candidates they feel best represents their values. Is it the customer’s fault, if more of them chose Pepsi or Coke? Nope.
Obama and Clinton are both better on gay right issues then McCain. None of these three people are perfect, gay marriage is an obvious example, but they are the only viable choices we have.
posted by Richard on
First off all, the Human Rights Campaign is more center-left, the NGLTF is certainly more left-wing, then HRC, but most of the other so-called ‘gayleft’ leaders have zero political power beyond their state or region.
At the Federal Level, only the HRC and the LCR are given even a modicum of credibility with most lawmakers, news media and their staff. Trust me, as I have worked in Washington for a number of years.
As an Independent, I have no ‘scorn’, or obessesive love, for either political party or any particular president, vice presideny or first lady. I am simply stating basic facts. Your are truly a partisan old queen.
How much of the LCR is connected to the RNC or GOP lawmakers? How much of the IGF is connected to the RNC and GOP lawmakers?
BTW, the Democrats have only a slim majority in Congress, which means that they have little Congress unless they are all in agreement.
Democrats or Republicans from more liberal districts are more likley to support gay rights. If they live in more conserative districts they are more likely to oppose them.
I have no problem acknowleding the Party ID of a California judge or governor. I will leave such partisan sillyness to you.
You seem to be of the opinion that all Democrats are evil, while all Republicans are our knights in shinning, lavander armor. I do not see reality being that way at all.
posted by Richard on
How is it scornful to note that the first lady has (1) avoided making too many public statements about gay rights, (2) use to be a Democrat and (3) is more of a traditional first lady.
In light of such facts, how do we really know weather or not her presence on Ellen was a signal of anything?
posted by Richard on
The problem with partisan gay Democrats is that they often refuse to admit that the party is not perfect.
Partisan gay Republicans fall into a similar trap. They also tend to insist that they be given more then just dignity, respect and a voice. They want to rule over everyone else as a king, or, a S&M queen.
posted by Richard on
Again, if the gay CA community wants to come out, so to speak, on top, no pun, then they will have to have a campaign that is very professional, very public and has the backing of Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, if you think you’re an Independent… well, act like one for a thread or two and we’ll all agree… but to date, it’s a fiction because you’ve been anything but independent in your political thoughts, discussion points or your simple aversion to admitting that it was a group of GOP CaSuprCt judges who gave CA gays the right to be married… appointed by CA GOP governors… etc. You see that as a silly partisan admisssion? OK, that’s why I wrote you’d rather spin than admit the truth.
And spin you have… but the point of Stephen’s post remains unchallenged: gay Democrats are more interested in appeasing their Democrat Party masters than stepping to the front and working for real progress… hence the headline: “Progress v. Partisanship”.
And you’re squarely in that rank.
posted by Brian Miller on
While the Libertarian Party finds itself in a weird set of circumstances this election, it’s interesting to note that Libertarian Bob Barr these days is more pro-gay than Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean!
Barr has renounced DOMA while Dean (and Clinton) continue to support the law he authored and has since renounced:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz-VZgVTJdQ
Progress comes through dialogue and outreach. And as usual, Libertarians are leading the way! 😉
posted by Richard on
MM, you have proven yourself to be a gay Republican partisan. Your entire posts are basically, “Republicans are white knights in lavender armor, while Democrats are evil, vile creatures.”
I have no “aversion” in noting the political ID of any judge, candidate or incumbent.
The fact that an appointed Republican judge ruled for gay marriage in a traditionally blue state California does not mean that that the Republican Party is moving forward, and it fails to explain why gay people might just be more inclined to vote for Democrats or Republicans.
Judges are suppose to issue rulings based on the law, not their party affiliation or the party affiliation of the defendents or plaintfiffs.
Republicans may be more socially liberal in California, compared to GOPers in other States, because that is where most voters are.
Republicans and Democrats often change their philosophy and platform to meet whatever they feel is electable in a given State.
If more consumers chose Pepsi over Coke, it would look rather silly if Coke started blaming the consumers rather then trying to change their mind.
Gay people are not going to change their vote, with people like MM making the case..
posted by MIchigan-Matt on
Richard notes: “MM, you have proven yourself to be a gay Republican partisan.”
Right. I don’t play the games you and some others here do by claiming to be an “independent” while writing, talking and thinking like a solid gay Democrat still ho’ing the row for the Masta’.
Originally your spin was to scorn the 1st Lady, scorn GOPers and minimize the historic nature of the CASupCt decision on gay marriage –all while not being able to even admit that GOP judges were responsible for the decision.
I guess your “aversion” to admitting the truth about who CA gays should be thanking in this matter is just a question of principle for you… right (LOL) that was Richard the Independent… the truth is that you can’t do it and you’ve had 3 opportunities now and still can’t do it.
Once again, Richard -as a water toting gay Democrat- you prove Stephen Miller’s point: for you and other gays, it’s all about Partisanship over Progress… keeping the gay vote in the Democrat Party column because, like blacks and BigCityMayors and BigLabor and Felons, the Democrat Party is your home and, therefore, should be the home of all gays.
Partisanship over Progress -you just keep proving Stephen’s point.
posted by Richard on
MM, you are a gay partisan. I am not.
Gay partisans — be they Democrats or Republicans — are more intested in promiting their party, appeasing their master and being an aplogist for it, then advancing LGBT rights.
The Libertarian Party has sold out for a celebrity candidate. Bob Bar has a horrid record on LGBT rights, some of which he claims to have suddenly changed.
He HAS NOT renounced the DOMA, but rather opposes a specific part of it. As do both Obama and Clinton. He does not support gay marriage.
Libertarians are never leading the way, because they do not win important elections and, if they did, want to tak America back to the 19th or 18th century. Not a wonderful era for gays.
I do not play games. You rant and rave about gays putting party interests ahead of gay rights, only to admit that you proudly do just that.
I never scorred the first lady. Please try to avoid lying, even a gay partisan such as yourself might be able to pull that off.
I said that the fact that she appeared on a talk show, does not mean that she is making any sort of political statement. The fact that she is a traditonalist first lady is certainly not scorn. The fact that she was once a Democrat is not scorn.
The CA Supreme Court decision is important, but it has little legal relevenace outside of the State. Open up a law book once and while.
Again, judges are not suppose to make rulings based on political party affiliation or belief.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, thank you for restating my claim that I am a gay GOP activist. I’ve never claimed otherwise, despite your repeated attempts to make it sound like you’re making some novel, innovative insight after years of study. LOL
You, too, are a gay Democrat partisan. Only you play the game of contending that you’re “independent” and unallied when your comments in this thread and in others resoundingly say “Democrat”.
Like Stephen points out in this article, you and your pals over at the DNC and several natl gay advocacy groups claim you’re working for the interest of gays, but the truth is you’re working to keep the gay vote down on the Democrat Masta’s plantation, keep the gay voice as one exclusively gayLeft, stop any independent thinking by gays at all costs.
As for your scorn of Laura Bush, please take a second and reread your line: “Basically, she been a ‘traditional’ first lady. Smile, look pretty, do some light charity.” If that condescending sneer isn’t on your face, I think you’ll need to once again consult the mirror. Just put the hand-signed 8×10 glossy of ScreaminHowieDean on the floor while consulting that mirror.
Yeah, I’d say reducing the 1stLady to “smile, look pretty, do some light charity” is pretty scornful… even with your CYA protective innoculation of “Nothing wrong with that”.
I guess your 1st Lady would be more in the mindset of Mrs Bill Clinton… forging the frontiers of divisive politics by claiming rightwing conspiracies were after her hubbie, losing key billing documents sought by the fed prosecutor looking into her criminal conduct, going on the offensive and smearing anyone or any gal that charged the Prez with added sexual misconduct and then, when no longer able to distract attention away from his misbegotten ways, tosses hubbie under the bus and sticks him on the couch at Martha’s Vineyard for a public flogging.
Yeah, you’re no partisan. Gee, Richard, what ever made us think that?
Finally, as for your unenlightened comment that the CA SupCt decision will have no effect outside of CA… can you really be THAT dense? Maybe after you open a law book and learn that State SupCt decisions can be appealed to the US SupCt you’ll gain a sense of why that decision could have lasting judicial impact on ALL US states.
Really, Richard, before you try to explain the legal system to a PoliSci PhD, you ought to know what you’re speaking about first.
posted by Richard on
MM;
I do not play games. I am an Independent. I have not endorsed any of the presidential candidates, nor do I plan to. I am still undecided about who I will vote for.
Gay partisans — Democrats and Republicans — often care more about promoting their political party (often at the expense of minor parties) then promoting gay rights.
You can keep your ‘masta’. BTW, telling a black man (who has actually served his country in uniform) a slave is without any merit. You are the gay partisan, not me.
I did not scorn the current first lady. I stated three basic facts;
(1) She used to be a Democrat.
(2) Appearing on a talk show may not be a political statement.
(3) She is a traditonalist first lady.
Do you dispute these facts? No, you continue to argue that somehow this is ‘scorning’ her. It is not.
If you knew anything about our legal system, you would know that a state supreme court case, applies to the state in question.
Federal and State constitutions are often very different animals and legal opinions are limited to a given state or district.
The United States Supreme Court has already ruled that nothing in the federal constitution requires states to recognize same-sex marriage.
Is this an important legal victory for gay rights? Yes, just as was the one in Mass. Yet, it has little or no standing beyond the state and may be overturned by voters.
The fact that judges are Republicans or Democrats SHOULD NOT MATTER. Judges are not suppose to issue rulings based on political party peference.
It certainly does not say anything new about either major party.
I have noted that the party id of the judges, and pointed out that it should not matter. Apparently, you partisanship hackery knows no limits.
You continue to insist that I must be a Democrat, even through it is not true. You care more about lies and promoting your own, rather embarrsing party, then
promoting gay rights.
Keep it up! Because more and more gays will leave both parties and become Independents.
posted by Richard on
The State of California is unlikley to appeal the St SC ruling, and instead will await the results of the ballot measure.
If it did somehow end up in federal court (i.e. federal question), the US Supreme Ct has already ruled on the matter, and it is highly unlikely that the current membership on the supreme court would overturn the decision.
Hence, lower federal courts would follow the precedent established in the 1970s.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, you keep contending that you’re NOT a gayLeft Democrat partisan but that just doesn’t hold up under a simple reading of your comments… and for the record, you continue to spin whenever held to account re: your own ridiculous claims.
You did scorn the 1st Lady and I pointed it out twice above. You still don’t get it.
You did contend the CaSupCt decision would have no effect nationally, although I pointed out how it could. You still tried to spin that point in a different direction.
You contend you’re an “independent” and yet your partisan defense of all things gayLeft or gayDemocrat continues.
Spin away Richard… it’s why Stephen Miller titled this thread “Progress vs Partisanship” -for you, it’s more important to keep gays down on the Democrat Plantation, voting as a block for the Masta, than to embrace more of the political spectrum and seek true progress over just continued partisanship parading as progress.
You are consistent, though. I think that might be due to the gayDemocrat blinders you’re wearing.