When I saw this headline in the DC Agenda (successor newspaper to the Washington Blade), Filibuster threat makes ENDA unlikely in 2010, I wondered if it could possibly be saying that LGBT activists couldn't find a single Republican to support the measure. But no, it means that even assuming a few mostly northeastern GOP senators were on board, enough Democrats would vote no to defeat the non-discrimination act. In other words, even if the Democrats had kept their Senate supermajority, it wouldn't have been enough.
"The Human Rights Campaign, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, and National Center for Transgender Equality - three leading groups working on ENDA - say they are confident the House of Representatives will pass ENDA in the summer or early fall. ... But in the Senate, LGBT civil rights lobbyists have been reluctant to reveal the findings of their highly confidential head counts, including leanings of the 17 Senate Democrats that have not signed on as co-sponsors. Among them are Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner, both of Virginia."
A gay non-discrimination act was first introduced in 1974 when Bella Abzug and Ed Koch were in Congress, and it still can't pass when Democrats have overwhelming majorities in both Houses? Majorities that are certain to shrink come November. I'd say yet again it's past time to revisit the pledges of free gay votes (and dollars) to Democrats just because they're Democrats (both Webb and Warner received support from local and national LGBT lobbies - the HRC web site still brags how it "mobilized its members to vote for U.S. Senate candidate Jim Webb"). But my beating that drum wouldn't do much good, would it.
Then again, without the vague "gender identity" add-on that could require employers to add unisex bathrooms, the odds for passage would be much greater. That's another self-inflected political wound that activists are intent on gouging deeper and deeper.
More on Jim Webb. MetroWeekly reports, "Webb...had in the past been an opponent of equal treatment for women in the military. When asked about the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy in an interview during his 2006 campaign for the U.S. Senate, Webb said, 'That's a policy that's working,' and left it at that."
So why the campaign support from the Human Rights Campaign? As long as you've got that "D" after your name, it's "don't ask, don't tell" about gay equality over at the Democratic Party's favorite free-money machine.
28 Comments for “35 Years of Failed Strategy”
posted by BobN on
“But my beating that drum wouldn’t do much good, would it.”
Yeah, better you keep beating the dump-on-Dems drum on gay websites.
What a waste… imagine the difference you could have made if you spent half your efforts writing IN FAVOR of gay rights to GOP groups.
posted by Jorge on
I don’t remember what circles Stephen Miller travels in, but there are plenty of people doing that already. Look at the announcements for John Corvino’s debates with Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family we see regularly. Look at the back and forth between Maggie Gallagher and the contributers on this site. Now, that’s conservative rather than Republican circles I will concede. For Republicans, look at the Log Cabin Republicans, which has been around for many years. And I tell you, they each have made a difference. Conservative and Republican gays have been becoming more widely recognized and credible in both the conservative mainstream, and the mainstream media. Certain assumptions are made or accepted today among conservatives and among Republicans that were considered radical 10 or 20 years ago.
It is perfectly reasonable to argue that the liberal gays and gay organizations are not pulling their own weight.
posted by Jorge on
I was going to post something sharper in response to this blog posting, but after reading the article, I think it will suffice to say that without a vote, I think we should treat every Congressperson as having voted no. Instead we are told to treat every Democrat as voting yes, and every Republican as voting no.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
On one hand, some moderate-to-conservative Democratic senators failing to support ENDA might not be fatal if the Republicans were not so relentlessly obstructionist, putting their partisan interest before all else. On the other hand, Steve has a legitimate point. In the fall of 2007, I wrote three columns — here, here, and here — criticizing the all-or-nothing approach demanded by the vast majority of GLBT rights groups. They insisted that Congress either pass a transgender-inclusive ENDA or no ENDA at all. My own local advocacy group in D.C., the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, supported passing the best achievable bill, which at that point was Barney Frank’s gay-only version. The all-or-nothing crowd insisted that this option was a betrayal, that the Human Rights Campaign (which decided pragmatically to support the Frank version after a whip count had shown insufficient votes for the trans-inclusive version) was throwing transgender people under the bus and that the entire gay rights movement would immediately forget about transgenders the moment the less-than-perfect ENDA were passed.
This was and is complete rubbish, and many of the activists who went along with it were just pandering. How in the world could hundreds of GLBT organizations around the country, who strongly support transgender rights, suddenly all drop their support because another group had been protected? Demanding all or nothing effectively demands nothing if your advocacy on all of the issues has not developed to the same stage of readiness.
But having beat my head sufficiently against the wall of we-want-everything-right-now-whether-we’ve-done-the-work-or-not, I am not going to keep fighting it. Let the all-or-nothing stampeders have it their way, and see what it gets them. Maybe, just maybe, some sensible voices will emerge from the ruins. If not, hey — my job is secure anyway. If my fellow advocates want to demand that Congress pass a perfect bill or no bill at all, so be it. I have learned that some people cannot be reasoned with, and sometimes people’s folly has to play itself out. In the meantime, I have plenty else to occupy my time.
posted by David Link on
Jorge, I’d propose a middle ground. The Senate Dems who have signed on as co-sponsors of the bill shouldn’t be treated with the same skepticism as the 17 who prefer the political netherworld.
And, of course, if any Republicans were to co-sponosr, they, too, should be given props. I doubt that, but I’m more cynical about the GOP than Stephen is, at least on this issue. I want their public support, and urge it whenever I can. I know many of them do support us in private, or individually, and their party’s current dynamics force them into a painful silence or even opposition. They have to come out of a very uncomfortable closet, themselves, just as we had to. And whenever that happens — publicly, remember — they should get every bit of our full-throated support, just as Democrats who will publicly back us should.
It’s only silence — the closet — that we should be worried about, whether it’s ours or that of some politician of either party.
posted by BobN on
Conservative and Republican gays have been becoming more widely recognized and credible in both the conservative mainstream, and the mainstream media. Certain assumptions are made or accepted today among conservatives and among Republicans that were considered radical 10 or 20 years ago.
That’s true, but why is it true? Because gay conservatives publish a lot in the conservative press? Pull the other one.
There are a handful, yes, a handful, of outspoken conservative gay people who have had some effect on GOP opinions, Andrew Sullivan, for one. But the vast majority of what is written about gay rights by gay conservatives is about Democrats and how they’re not doing enough. In the meantime, look at what the GOP does. Just listen to the leaders of the party. Listen to McCain on DADT.
This next year is going to be filled with GOP senators and party leaders saying ridiculous things about gay people. I encourage gay conservatives to WRITE TO THEM instead of posting more crap about how the Democratic majority in Congress won’t do anything for us.
posted by BobN on
In the fall of 2007, I wrote three columns — here, here, and here
My point exactly. You wrote three columns in the gay press knocking the gay-rights groups.
How many columns in GOP publications supporting gay rigths? I’m going out on a limb and guessing ZERO. Am I wrong?
If you don’t support the inclusion of transgenders, ignore that issue and write in favor of ending discrimination against gay people. Try convincing YOUR SIDE that YOU deserve protections.
What’s the matter? Won’t they publish you?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What a waste… imagine the difference you could have made if you spent half your efforts writing IN FAVOR of gay rights to GOP groups.
Go to hell.
Playing down its support for gay marriage, the HRC mobilized its 650,000 members to staff phone banks, raise money, and participate in get-out-the-vote campaigns to elect candidates sympathetic to gay issues, even if they didn’t support gay marriage. The group was the single biggest donor to Democratic state Senate races in New Hampshire, helping the party take control of both chambers of the Legislature for the first time since 1874.
The group also helped congressional candidates from Arizona to Florida and Ohio, and party activists believe the organization can play an even larger role in the 2008 elections. The idea, leaders say, is to become a steady source of funds and grass-roots support for Democrats — more akin to a labor union than a single-issue activist group.
“They took it to the grass roots and had people in individual states helping, either by volunteering or sending personal contributions,” said Tina Stoll , a Democratic fund-raiser. Instead of throwing its money at defeating ballot initiatives banning gay marriage, the HRC focused on electing Democratic majorities — even if it meant helping candidates who weren’t fully in support of their agenda, she said.
What that should make patently obvious is that the gay and lesbian community is only using “gay rights” as a smokescreen for their undying and slavish devotion to the Obama Party, and that they will give up these “rights” on command from their masters. It’s nothing more than the lavender equivalent of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and should be called out and treated with the same level of contempt as these minority-status hucksters receive.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
BobN, setting aside your obnoxious tone: in fact I have written several things over the years for Log Cabin’s think tank, Liberty Education Forum, although I am personally a (centrist) Democrat. I have also written in the non-gay press. David Horowitz’s conservative Front Page Magazine, an online magazine, has published half a dozen articles by me over the years. I doubt the GOP press in general would be interested in publishing me; but I leave that to my gay Republican friends, who (as ND30 suggests) have been active in defending gay rights including with lobbying efforts in Congress in defense of D.C.’s marriage equality bill.
I have NOT stated anywhere that I oppose transgender rights. On the contrary, I strong support them (and Steve Miller and I appear to disagree on this point); my point was that we should not take an all-or-nothing approach, but rather should pass what we have prepared the ground to be able to pass, and continue working for the rest.
posted by BobN on
Richard,
No need to set aside my tone. If this website is about anything, it’s about tone. Though I did get a chuckle out of your referring to “tone” in the same post in which you mention ND30’s post.
Anyway, thanks for mentioning the places where you publish. Did you think I wouldn’t check them out?
Here’s your intro on a FrontPageMagazine piece:
And another piece for the same mag: Marxism’s Queer Harvest
And who can forget “A Queer Taste for Muslim Rioters”?
The stuff at LogCabin is along the same lines. Bad lefty queers, bad!!!
I think your work proves my point.
But thanks for your work with Gay Men’s Chorus of DC. THAT is a real contribution.
posted by BobN on
Go to hell.
Did anyone else hear that gassy noise?
posted by CPT_Doom on
I simply cannot fathom gay men and lesbians (although to be accurate, it is mostly gay men) who don’t understand that every “gay rights” issue is, in fact, all about gender. One only has to look at the anti-gay hate talking points to see this. The myth about the human species being divided into two “complementary” genders, which is a complete contradiction of basic biology; the lie that women and men contribute specific and non-overlapping skills to parenting, when anyone could point to families, even breeder families, where the man and woman do not fit the stereotypes favored by anti-gay hate groups; even the attacks on LGBT military members we heard today from the likes of douchebag Duncan Hunter, who claims that we fags aren’t man enough to be in the military. All of these arguments have one thing in common, the belief that men and women should and must act only according to gender stereotypes.
We are not attacked by anti-gay hatemongers simply because we have sex with members of our own gender, we are attacked because we fail to follow the proscribed gender roles that have been created by society. Gay men are seen as perverted in large part because we “demean” ourselves by taking on the female role; lesbians because they place themselves as equal to men. Sexism and homophobia are simply flip sides of the same coin.
Thus gender identity is inextribly linked to sexual orientation and must be included in our fight for equality. My gender must not dictate my life any more than my amidexterity should.
posted by Jorge on
Jorge, I’d propose a middle ground. The Senate Dems who have signed on as co-sponsors of the bill shouldn’t be treated with the same skepticism as the 17 who prefer the political netherworld.
Fine, but make them all sweat first, even the opposition Republicans. I’d rather fight to a standstill first, then agree to a draw.
BobN, do you really want to get in a wrestling match over John McCain with someone who says speaking with Focus on the Family and Maggie Gallagher has a positive impact?
No, of course not. Anyway, to tell you the truth, I do NOT know why. I can only tell you that when you look in a certain direction for a while, you pick up patterns and strange mysterious happenings. Like that odd introspective column by Gallagher I read a couple of days ago where she talks about being thrown for a loop by a gay questioner who got rejected by his family who asks “why shouldn’t we pressure religions to be less anti-gay?” Yet, with worries and uncertainties, she does not change her views. What? Something happened. But that something is 1) not what was “supposed” to happen, and 2) something nobody notices or cares about. Until one day we wake up and discover that Americans’ attitudes have changed or moderated somehow. I have seen these “somethings” many times in Republicans between Gallagher and Rudy Giuliani.
Too meandering or did I make my point?
posted by Throbert McGee on
Gay men are seen as perverted in large part because we “demean” ourselves by taking on the female role
We’re seen as perverted, in large part, because the majority of us insist on conceptualizing anal sodomy as “vanilla” sex — that is, as “how gay men make love.”
Before anyone says, “Oh, but breeders have anal sex too!”, I will concede that point, but insist that few, if any, heterosexuals conceptualize anal sex as “vanilla,” let alone as “making love.”
posted by Jorge on
We’re seen as perverted, in large part, because the majority of us insist on conceptualizing anal sodomy as “vanilla” sex — that is, as “how gay men make love.”
Why does that cause people to see gays as perverted.
Before anyone says, “Oh, but breeders have anal sex too!”, I will concede that point, but insist that few, if any, heterosexuals conceptualize anal sex as “vanilla,” let alone as “making love.”
Few, if any, white people conceptualize platanos and collared greens as paletable, let alone dinner. In other words, you are missing the point and making excuses.
posted by Debrah on
“Throbert’s” (12:16 AM) is a bulls eye.
A point made with laser beam accuracy.
That concept, along with the practice of “rimming”, are things you can’t get anyone—especially heterosexuals—to even talk about when discussing gay issues.
“Rimming” is a main cause for the escalation of cases involving gonorrhea of the larynx. Can anyone really imagine kissing a person who practices this?
Yet on one of the gay blogs a commenter opined…..”I just love to stick my tongue inside the ripe button hole of a young twink.”
People see this kind of thing and wonder why it isn’t condemned.
Any clue?
Over the holiday I was discussing politics with my sister, who is quite liberal in all things, and I brought up the current issues involving SSM and the gay agenda.
When I began discussing actual sexual practices that have given people pause, she said only…..”I don’t want to talk about it.”
I think that says it all.
Proponents of the gay agenda cannot run from these realities any more than heterosexuals can run from the stratospheric out-of-wedlock birth rate among some groups.
Perhaps “Throbert’s” agenda could use more followers—for life and for health.
posted by BobN on
Too meandering or did I make my point?
Not at all. Apparently, however, I failed to make my point.
BobN, do you really want to get in a wrestling match over John McCain with someone who says speaking with Focus on the Family and Maggie Gallagher has a positive impact?
I have no problem with people speaking to our opponents, whether they be of the rank and file or leaders of the movement though, to be frank, the leaders have an insurmountable financial interest in their opposition, so I don’t expect movement there. Of course, one day, when gay rights are more firmly entrenched, Maggie will “see the light” and write a book about it, I’m sure.
posted by BobN on
If they see as as perverts because of anal sex, why do they call us cocksuckers?
posted by Anon on
If it’s all about anal sex, why aren’t the anti-gays supporting lesbian marriage? After all, lesbians are arguably the one group of people on earth who will never engage in anal sex.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
BobN wrote, “I think your work proves my point.”
You made a false statement, which I refuted. Your point appeared to be that my writing is somehow definitionally worthless regardless of where it is published, since you are dismissive despite my having written in the gay and mainstream press, and for liberals and conservatives.
I have written many articles about many things, but yes, criticizing the self-defeating gay left is among them. Your insults are not arguments. I have a rather extensive track record as an activist, and I publish my work under my own name. I am not sure what it proves for someone to throw ill-aimed darts while using a vague handle that keeps him effectively anonymous.
posted by BobN on
Richard,
You could settle this dust-up with some links to pro-gay-rights articles in non-gay publications, preferably right-leaning ones.
I spent about 15 minutes Googling you and found only anti-lefty stuff in gay publications, at the LCR site and at FrontPageMag.
As for my anonymity, I’m sure my activism pales in comparison to yours. I guess that makes you immune to criticism.
posted by Jorge on
Of course, one day, when gay rights are more firmly entrenched, Maggie will “see the light” and write a book about it, I’m sure.
You’re thinking George Wallace, eh? I’m thinking Sean Hannity. He used to say some pretty bad stuff 20 years ago that he doesn’t say anymore, does that mean he’s seen the light?
posted by Pat on
We’re seen as perverted, in large part, because the majority of us insist on conceptualizing anal sodomy as “vanilla” sex — that is, as “how gay men make love.”
Before anyone says, “Oh, but breeders have anal sex too!”, I will concede that point, but insist that few, if any, heterosexuals conceptualize anal sex as “vanilla,” let alone as “making love.”
Throbert, I really don’t think that persons who think gay persons are perverted make a distinction between two men engaging in anal sex, oral sex, or frottage. They don’t see any of these as “vanilla” or “making love.”
And if they don’t like gay men referring to anal sex as “vanilla,” I really doubt that will be any more comforted when they hear about oral sex or frottage between two men and/or calling it “vanilla,” “making love,” or whatever.
If the point is that we should keep quiet about our individual sexual likes and activities, that’s fine. Then I would say it should include all sexual activities.
posted by CPT_Doom on
I’m sorry – what the f*ck? The idea that gay male sex = anal is part of the right-wing talking points, but not in any way reality in the gay male community I know. I have plenty of friends who do not enjoy that specific sexual practice, but are still gay as heck.
On the other hand – who are you to judge? If you don’t like anal, don’t do it. I find rimming grotesque, and choose not to engage in it, but I have to admit loving a good bang in the read. And yes, anal can very much be part of “making love,” at least if you do it right.
We will not achieve our equality by buying into the anti-gay hate arguments used against us.
posted by BobN on
You’re thinking George Wallace, eh? I’m thinking Sean Hannity.
First of all, it strikes me as deeply insulting to George Wallace to compare him to Sean Hannity.
I was actually thinking of neither of those examples. Maggie will “convert” as soon as she sees some monetary benefit in doing so. Wallace’s turn-around on race struck me as quite sincere and, given his role in history, the public deserved some discussion of it from him (even if he hadn’t changed his mind).
posted by Debrah on
” Maggie will ‘convert’ as soon as she sees some monetary benefit in doing so.”
**********************************
If this is the same “Maggie” I’ve seen on cable news occasionally, she needs to think about losing around 60 pounds before she stages a démarche in any other direction.
posted by Throbert McGee on
The idea that gay male sex = anal is part of the right-wing talking points, but not in any way reality in the gay male community I know. I have plenty of friends who do not enjoy that specific sexual practice, but are still gay as heck.
Your friends are an exception to the rule — as any gay man who avoids anal sex soon finds out.
On the other hand – who are you to judge?
I’m an uncle of a three-year-old nephew. (And an “honorary”, non-biological uncle to several more kids.)
If my nephew turns out to be homosexual, I would much prefer that, on reaching adulthood, he discovers a Gay Male Community where anal sex is considered “kinky,” rather than a “vanilla” practice that one can admit to doing completely without embarrassment. Why? Because he’ll be safer that way.
posted by BobN on
as any gay man who avoids anal sex soon finds out
If you avoid it by complaining about it a lot, as it appears you do, perhaps they’re just avoiding you.