I'll jump in with a few new year's legislative-front predictions for 2010, which I suspect won't be well received by those who view the world through the lens of LGBT political lobbies and media. In short, don't expect much from Washington in the year ahead.
Having given us a "hate crimes" bill, Democrats feel that, for the most part, they've taken care of things. With elections approaching in November and the number of expected lost seats for Democrats mounting, purple state/district Democrats-already severely burned by succumbing to "Chicago-style" pressure to vote for an increasingly unpopular (and, in fact, truly dreadful) "health care reform" bill-have used up just about all their wiggle room among centrist and center-right voters.
Those who think that they will cast their lots for an Employment Non-Discrimination Act that includes (as LGBT activists insist it MUST) job protections for transgendered workers (ill-defined, despite the bill's verbosity on the matter, and still subject to scary charges about men in dresses exercising free-choice regarding restrooms) are delusional. It won't happen.
As for reforming or repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, sorry, that's a no-go, too. And for the same reasons-Democrats have pushed those beyond their left-liberal base as far as they dare with health care and mega-government-expanding "stimulus," and they must at least appear to be moving back toward the center. Moreover, when it comes to equality for same-sex spouses, the Obama administration has not exactly shown courage, or willingness to spend political capital (indeed, quite the opposite). Which shouldn't surprise anyone who was paying attention during the campaign.
The one possibility for progress is that repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" might be pushed through as part of a defense spending bill later this year. Given that a majority of Americans now seem to favor this, and it might be done relatively quietly, it's within the realm of possibility. That would certainly be welcome, but even John McCain was suggesting he'd consider repeal. Given what the "LGBT community" spent in terms of labor and dollars on behalf of electing this administration and Congress, and the promises we were made, it's slim pickings-if it happens at all.
As for the November elections, pollsters expect significant losses in the House (20 to 40 Democratic seats are widely mentioned) and the shift of several Democratic Senate seats to the GOP, restoring its filibuster. That's going to make the one-party strategy, which was always a terrible "all eggs in one basket" bet, even worse-for us, at least, if not for the Democratic operatives running the Democratic fundraising fronts know as LGBT rights organizations.
23 Comments for “Washington Predictions for 2010”
posted by Li-bear-ian on
Speaker Pelosi has already said that she won’t any gay-friendly legislation come before the House unless the Senate has already passed such legislation. The Speaker said she won’t put any vulnerable Democratic members (especially freshmen) in harm’s way for a controversial vote.
However, since she represents the city of San Francisco in the House, I sincerely doubt Pelosi will permit the House to vote to override Washington D.C. same sex marriage legislation.
While I hate to beat a dead horse … do you expect the Republicans to offer any olive branches to LGBT voters. I don’t either.
posted by another steve on
The Human Rights Campaign, under current management, no longer even tries to reach out to moderate or libertarian Republicans – it just raises money for Democrats. Witness the recent New York 23 race, where a pro-gay marriage Republican ran against an anti-gay marriage Democrat (and an anti-gay marriage Conservative). HRC chose to make no endorsement.
posted by Drew on
The attempt to use parties to push issues does not work until the issue is bigger than the two parties. This is why GLBT needs policy organizations to push for reform.
posted by DragonScorpion on
As bad as I’d hate to see it come to pass, I suspect that Mr. Miller may very well be right.
In light of how badly healthcare reform has gone, and with Republicans tying themselves to the faux populist rage among conservatives these days, I am becoming increasingly pessimistic that the Democrats are going to be able to get much more done for us, let alone want to press the public on controversial issues.
The Republicans are, overall, pushing back hard on everything the Democrats propose. And just as the Republicans have used us as a scapegoat and catalyst to motivate their base in the past, they are likely to do so again in the coming months/years. They’ll draw a line in the sand on homosexual equality issues. A line that Democrats will undoubtedly not be willing to cross.
While it’s unlikely that much could get passed now in regards to DOMA, ENDA, and Don’t ask, Don’t tell, it will be even less likely so if/when more congressional seats are held by Republicans. Particularly now that moderates are increasingly being pushed out of the party in place of hardcore conservatives.
That doesn’t give us many good prospects for the near future.
The Republicans, by and large, have proven themselves not to be an option for advancing our causes. To the contrary, it’s because of them we have 30 states with constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, as well as the referendums in CA and MA. There are exceptions, like Dede Sozzafava in New York’s 23rd. That would have been the candidate for us to get behind. If for no other reason than to send a message to those espousing the small-tent Republican strategy.
Still, the Democrats have made promises to us and we should expect them to deliver. I think many in our community were wrong for demanding instant gratification in the first 6 months/year, but by the end of President Obama’s term we have legitimate cause to feel totally let down if the Democrats haven’t achieved more than the Hate Crimes legislation for us. Or at least gave more some genuine effort.
I think we should vote for those who represent our interests. And those who can’t (or won’t) deliver, don’t need nor deserve our votes. I think we should very seriously be considering going with more independent candidates, especially in districts where a third party candidate has a decent chance of winning.
I think the country is better off with less partisanship anyway, but third party politicians have shown themselves to be more inclined to bucking the system and supporting controversial legislation.
While I realize that it isn’t necessarily a practical approach, and I know enough about politics to know that compromises for political expediency is how you ultimately win in the end, I feel these days that we need to draw our own line in the sand to some extent. Otherwise, we risk being played.
Even if we support a third party candidate who is strong on equality issues but doesn’t win, and this ends up costing a moderate Democrat the election, we will at least have taken a principled stand. Both parties, especially the Democrats, need to be made fully aware that our votes are not automatic. If they want our support, then they better support us and deliver.
But don’t get me wrong. This need not be a suicide pact. When we see socially conservative candidates who are railing against equality issues and demonizing us to try to get elected, I think we should put everything else aside and do whatever it takes to keep that conservative from being elected. There is so much at stake these days.
To me, this is one, at the voting booth anyway, that we can exercise real power.
posted by david on
What a shame. The first day of a new year and a new decade and you are still using that useless, outdated, meaningless and silly term “LGBT”. When are we going to grow up, throw off this false amalgam and move forward? Not this year or decade apparently.
posted by r.d. on
David, I think Steve uses the term in a mocking way, or at least to mirror the activists’ own convoluted language. They see themselves as "LGBT" groups, not as gay (or gay and lesbian) groups.
To the larger point, the 2009-2010 period may well be the last time in the foreseable future that the Democrats have controlling majorities in both chambers (meaning a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate). This is it, folks. One year to go. If they don’t get rid of DOMA and the military ban, and don’t deliver ENDA, then it won’t happen. It’s the window of opportunity, and it’s closing fast.
So why aren’t HRC and the rest demanding that we be taken as seriously as the women’s groups are (NOW got a sweeping paycheck pariety bill passed as the FIRST order of business of the Obama Congress!)? I think Miller’s explanation is right — our lobbies are controlled by the Democratic Party and are nothing but party fundraising efforts. What an incredible shame!
posted by another steve on
If ENDA had been put forward solely as a bill that prohibits job-based discrimination based on sexual orientation, it would have sailed through this year (and even with several GOP votes). But our LGBT “leaders” have determined that we have to have everything now, and not progress in steps, so there will be no protections based on ither orientation or gender identity.
This is the same failed mindset you see by those who oppose going for civil unions first in states that are clearly not ready for full marriage equality. But they make the fight for marriage — all or nothing, right now.
I’ve come to the conclusion that activists groups find it in their interest to fundraise based on nonaccomplishments (send us money so we can demand full marriage and transgendered rights or nothing today!) then to actually move forward.
posted by BobN on
This is the same failed mindset you see by those who oppose going for civil unions first in states that are clearly not ready for full marriage equality. But they make the fight for marriage — all or nothing, right now.
In what state are we going for full marriage equality where we don’t already have civil unions? (If you mean NY, I don’t think that counts, since NY recognizes same-sex marriage from other states. If a NY couple really HAS to get married (for health reasons, for example), they have a way to gain the rights: a short trip.)
posted by Jon on
How in god’s name did the gay movement become all about cross-dressing, hermaprhodites and sex-change operations? Didn’t we spend most of the 20th century trying to persuade the general public that being gay did NOT mean that you were a “third sex” or that you were a wannabe of the opposite sex? So after largely succeeding in this, our “leaders”, without discussion or debate, concoct the ludicrous “LGBT”. Thereby telling every 13 year old gay boy and girl out there that they are definitionally linked with cross-dressing.
I recently have seen a new concoction: LGBTIA – with a “I” for “intersexed” and an “A” for allies. Since close to or more than half the population can be our “ally” on any given issue, our movement has essentially been defined out of existence.
posted by Jorge on
While I hate to beat a dead horse … do you expect the Republicans to offer any olive branches to LGBT voters. I don’t either.
It’s a matter of leadership and character. If President Obama were someone to take a strong stand, again and again, in favor of even some good things for us, I would be more likely to vote for him. Yet what has happened is the opposite: Democrats offering olive branches to conservative voters, taking stands against gays. Whether it’s their values or their voters, they have chosen their actions deliberately. They should only get what they ask for at the ballot booth.
I suppose it should be predictable that following an influx of conservative Democrats, a conservative Republican wave will follow.
This isn’t a Democrat or Republican issue. One of the most distressing things to me is not that Obama isn’t doing enough, but how little he is being pushed to do enough. Politicians never do things “in time.” That’s why when we say we want things done “NOW”, we have to actually follow through, with consequences.
posted by BobN on
Jon, I don’t how YOU spent the better half of the 20th century, but if you think “without discussion or debate” characterizes ANY of it, you’re wrong.
We haven’t fought for decades for the right to be the same as the “normal” people, we’ve fought for the acknowledgment that “normal” is a bigger tent than our opponents would like to admit.
posted by Jon on
“We haven’t fought for decades for the right to be the same as the “normal” people, we’ve fought for the acknowledgment that “normal” is a bigger tent than our opponents would like to admit.”
Maybe so. But that doesn’t mean we were fighting for “intersexed” rights or for the rights of cross-dressers. We were fighting to expand the definition of normal in one particular area of human identity, namely sexual orientation. Gender identity, as every trans activist will instruct you, is different from sexual orientation. A trans person can have any sexual orientation. Most are straight. So there is absolutely no reason for a group defined by gender identity to be grafted onto a movement about sexual orientation. And it makes no sense at all to do so when it creates obstacles and difficulties for gay people, as evidenced by the objections to the “trans incusive” ENDA.
And I have no recollection of ever being asked by any of our gay “leaders” whether I agreed with the creation of LGBT. Can you tell me when and where we held the vote on this? I must have missed it.
posted by BobSF_94117@yahoo.com on
YOU may not have been fighting for anything other than the rights of gay people, but the movement has been for over 40 years. No one imposed an inclusive approach. It is the result of decades of activism and the rising to leadership of those willing to take the risk. If some other folks with different ideas had been leading the movement instead of sitting in the closet waiting until it was safe to come out, maybe the movement wouldn’t be inclusive.
So there is absolutely no reason for a group defined by gender identity to be grafted onto a movement about sexual orientation. And it makes no sense at all to do so when it creates obstacles and difficulties for gay people, as evidenced by the objections to the “trans incusive” ENDA.
Except that other sexual minorities have been with us, fighting with us, since the very beginning of the gay rights movement. If those who oppose all of us have finally gotten to the point where they can see that being gay is not the same as being transgender or cross-dressing, it is due to the efforts of other sexual minorities and to our efforts.
As to the vote you missed, of course there wasn’t one. And if you were aware enough and engaged enough to know there wasn’t a vote, how could you have missed the countless times this issue has been discussed?
posted by Bobby on
“What a shame. The first day of a new year and a new decade and you are still using that useless, outdated, meaningless and silly term “LGBT”. When are we going to grow up, throw off this false amalgam and move forward? Not this year or decade apparently.”
—Just be happy he’s not using LGBTQ. The “Q” is for either “queer” or “questioning.” Seriously, if you’re “questioning” you’re not part of the gay community or straight community. You have to define yourself as gay, straight, bisexual or transgender before you can be part of anything. That’s like NOW considering you a member even if you haven’t paid your dues.
posted by Jimbo on
Have any of you heard of the ultimate acronym: LGBTQIA (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Intersexed & Allies). Whew! What a mouthful.
posted by Jorge on
Huh? What happened to Two-Spirit?
I think Queer and Questioning have their uses in the social context. Sexual orientation supposedly isn’t stabilized until early adulthood, and people often don’t realize they’re gay until even later.
Now that I’m on the inside I see what a big lie GLBT is. It’s a marriage of convenience. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders don’t love each other any more than Mexicans, Ecuadorians, and Puerto Ricans love each other. But we pretend to, and that’s good enough.
So, deal with it.
posted by Bobby on
Intersexed and allies? I don’t get it. An intersexed is someone born wtih a penis and a vagina, what does that have to do with sexual orientation? Why would they feel part of our community?
As for allies. Well, we all like allies but do we need to include them in our acronym?
Just like there are “Friends of the NRA” there can be “Friends of the Gay Community” or “LGBT Allies.” But expanding LGBT to include Q, I and A is ridiculous.
posted by Jon on
@Bobby:
But you see, if T’s and I’s were only allies, then they wouldn’t have any basis to demand that gay organizations re-order their priorities to serve T’s and I’s.
An ally can only make a request for help, but a full-blown community member can make endless demands. Lesbians never have to request anything of the gay community, because they are indisputably part and parcel of it. But an ally like a labor union or the Democratic Party would have to ask us for help, not demand it. We would then weigh the request and decide whether to help or not.
So it serves the Ts very well to concoct something called “LGBT” because now they can demand. They only get away with this b/c there are enough dimwitted gay folk like BobN above to allow them.
posted by BobN on
If knowing the history of our movement makes me “dimwitted”, so be it.
It’s better than being a hypocrite.
posted by Lori Heine on
How’s this for a Washington prediction? Before the end of the year, Republicans will actually put an end to DADT. Then, to avoid being upstaged by the GOP, President Obama will block it.
Better nobody else keeps his promise than that he keeps it himself.
posted by DragonScorpion on
LOL @ Lori. I know you’ve really got it out for President Obama, but you are joking, right?
posted by Timothy (TRiG) on
Jon: But that doesn’t mean we were fighting for “intersexed” rights or for the rights of cross-dressers.
Maybe you weren’t. Not everyone has your selfish “screw you, Jack; I’ve got mine” attitude.
Thank goodness.
TRiG.
posted by Bobby on
“An ally can only make a request for help, but a full-blown community member can make endless demands”
—Good point, Jon. The truth is the gay community already has enough of its plate with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered rights. The intersexed already have their own organizations.
Seriously, this movement cannot keep adopting more groups.