Houston Mayor Annise Parker commented recently on the defeat of the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance. As reported by the Washington Blade:
After the defeat of the ordinance, Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin told the Blade LGBT advocates should call on TV stations not to run anti-trans ads like the kind seen in Houston, an idea Parker said she endorses. “I think there should be a certain level of social responsibility because while they were horrific ads, they were clearly fear-mongering and deliberate lies,” Parker said.
Anyone is free to organize protests and otherwise make their views known to the media. The problem is that almost all political ads are seen as “unfair”—by the other side. And often, that’s exactly what they are—remember those Democratic ads showing Republicans rolling grandma in her wheelchair over the cliff by supporting Medicare reform.
The Houston ads against the ordinance, raising the spectre of threatening “men” (instead of transgender women) using women’s restrooms, are only more so.
But if the best response advocates of anti-discrimination measures can propose is to pressure TV stations not to run opposition ads, that’s a rather stark admission that they can’t mount an effective counter-argument and organize effectively to get their message out. And that raises comparisons to the recent wave of campus protests that seek to forbid speech that progressives view as advocating incorrect views. It’s all of a piece of the new illiberal intolerance.
More. Mark Lee writes in the Washington Blade:
That whooshing sound you may have heard when reading Washington Blade reporter Chris Johnson’s interview last month with Chad Griffin was likely the air being sucked out of the room due to gasps by First Amendment adherents. The Human Rights Campaign president offered a shockingly stark strategy for avoiding future ballot defeats on nondiscrimination measures such as the recent loss in Houston.
“In politics, there’s often two sides to a debate,” Griffin acknowledged, before dissecting the degree of debate he would tolerate. “There’s also right and wrong, and there’s lies, and there’s defamation of an entire population of people. And that’s what happened in Houston. And so, I am hopeful that in the go-forward we as a community, as an organization, local campaigns can be more aggressive with station managers, quite frankly.” Griffin’s “solution” to losing seems to be roughing-up news stations running opposition ads or reporting on opponent positions, rather than winning hearts and minds. Sort of similar to something Donald Trump might say.
We are collectively losing sight of the fact that the defense of liberty and free speech only matters when protecting the right to expression of unpopular opinion.
41 Comments for “A Better Response to Attack Ads”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Houston ads against the ordinance, raising the spectre of “men” (actually transgender women) using women’s restrooms, is only more so.
A quiet note: The ads had nothing to do with “the spectre of “men” (actually transgender women) using women’s restrooms“, other than that transgenders provided a convenient vehicle for an assault on LGBT non-discrimination. The ads were designed to (and, apparently succeeded in) raising the spectre that real, live straight men would dress as women and invade women’s bathrooms for cheap thrills and, perhaps, rape.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Give it a rest Stephen – the only person drawing a line (incorrectly) between these two is you.
The ads in question — that ran before the HERO defeat — are currently still running as part of the mayoral run-off in support of the “straight slate” of anti-LGBT candidates.
These ads made the false assertion that trans-inclusive public accommodation laws open the bathroom door to men in general and sexual predators in specific — not only defaming an entire class of people, but upping the chances of real physical violence against them.
The media here in Houston allowed these lies to be perpetuated and repeated ad nauseum to the point that no other argument could even be heard.
There were plenty of lessons to be learned from this defeat — and those of us on the ground here in Houston are working to put those lessons to good use… so we’ll be back — and prepared to win against lies the next time around. So look forward to writing plenty of stories about poor persecuted Christian florists & bakers in Houston in the near future.
posted by Houndentenor on
And now we are back to the fundamental problem with lbgt rights groups. Too many think they can win these arguments from inside the beltway or via national media. Politics of this type are local. Bringing in a movie star doesn’t help. In fact that can backfire as it just looks like some Hollywood liberal coming to town to tell everyone what to do and then jetting back to California. People in the “flyover country” resent that and are even vocal about that resentment so it’s not as if it’s a secret that such strategies usually backfire. It also shows what a joke the idea of a “liberal media” really is. Local media is not liberal at all. Local news is watched by older people who are mostly more conservative and the coverage panders to them. We also live in an era in which stenography and reading from a teleprompter are considered serious journalism. We simply cannot expect tv news to fact check anything. They don’t, they aren’t going to, and they will respond angrily at any suggestion that they should. Liberal suck at messaging and ground organization and until that changes we will keep losing. Blaming others for not doing what many have called on us to do for over 20 years is pathetic. We lost this because we didn’t play. The national lbgt organizations are arrogant and more interested in their own bloated salaries and star-studded parties than in accomplishing anything. HRC is the worst at this. I love Sally Field but that was their idea of a winning strategy?
posted by Doug on
Stephen, weren’t you just bemoaning the fact that there were lies told about Carl Demaio? Why didn’t he mount an effective counter campaign? I guess he is just a loser in your book now, right? I think it’s time you got back on your medication, Stephen.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. No one has a right to have their commercial air on private television or radio station (assuming that no contract has been signed). Like wise, the fact that a newspaper opts not to publish some letters to the editor, or a television network opts not to pick up a certain show, does not violate anyone’s rights.
2. I would fault much of the Houston media for failing to do their JOB as journalists, when said job gets in the way of flashy graphics shouting matches, infomercials and lots and lots and lots of info-taiment.
How many members of the media actually took the time to INVESTIGATE and REPORT on the claims presented by the opponents of the civil right bill? How many of them pushed for a serious conversation about the concerns that both sides had?
posted by Houndentenor on
The news media doesn’t investigate anything. Why do you think we are always finding out what crooks our senators and governors are only AFTER they run for president? They are stenographers and well-coifed morons hired to look good on tv in between commercials. If you want something on the news you have to hand it to them pre-packaged and ready to air. Everyone in PR and politics knows this so why are the gay groups still making the same mistake? We lost this like we lost Prop 8 and so many others. The other side lied and we stood by and let them do it with far too little response.
posted by Wilberforce on
We’ll keep loosing until you all understand the real nature of the media. The problem isn’t that we don’t mount a vigorous defense.
There are 2 problems here. One is the media’s real objective. Their job is to distract attention from the corruption and incompetence of their owners. They’ve done that for fifty years by featuring the terrible minorities, of which we are one. You don’t understand this because of another problem: picking leaders who look good, or by identity politics. They are second rate at best. You love Sally Fields? She’s an ignorant Hollywood rube whose only talent is self-promotion. Until we all wise up, and choose leaders with brains and integrity, we’ll continue to loose locally.
posted by Houndentenor on
Sally Field (no s) is a fine actress. I enjoy her work. I don’t think she’s any better informed about politics than anyone else. My point was that while I enjoy her talking about her work (her Inside the Actors Studio was informative), bringing her in to promote gay rights was a waste of time. Trashing her acting just shows you to be an ignorant ass.
posted by Wilberforce on
First you love her, then you enjoy her work. Which is it, the usual celebrity worship of low gay culture, or an altered version used to distance yourself from that? And the argument wasn’t that celebrities aren’t brilliant avatars, it was that the avatars don’t work locally.
I’m sorry to have taken a swipe at you in particular. But the incompetence of the gay elite, and of the community who choose them, still stands.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Yes, I would agree that bringing someone like Sally Field in to help persuade voters, is going to have limited effectiveness (outside of maybe preaching to the choir)
I am someone who loves Sally Field. I can appreciate why she wants to get involved and think that — like many celebrities can certainly be helpful in some ways.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
No one has a right to have their commercial air on private television or radio station (assuming that no contract has been signed).
I’m not sure, Tom, but I think that the FCC does not allow stations to turn down ads from political candidates based on the content of the ads. A candidate can produce an ad claiming that his/her opponent rapes chickens, and the station’s hands are tied, as I understand it. So long as the candidate files a statement “I approve this ad …” that’s the end of the story.
As far as I know, however, that is not true for non-candidate ads (e.g. PAC ads) or business/commercial ads. Stations do have discretion concerning those ads, and, as a point of fact, stations do, with some frequency, turn down ads based on content for a variety of reasons, including that the content is “controversial“.
posted by Mike in Houston on
You are correct: TV stations have to accept demonstrably false ads from candidates – but can always -ALWAYS- refuse issue ads that run afoul of subjective broadcast standards…
Which is why it’s strange that Stephen singles out the pro-LGBT folks for asking that stations not broadcast complete falsehoods, but says ZIP about stations that refused to run pro-marriage equality ads because… Jesus.
posted by Mike in Houston on
And please Stephen – do proceed…
posted by Houndentenor on
It would be nice if just once Stephen and the other homocons actually supported gay rights instead of making excuses for bigots. It tells us plenty about what they are about. They only care about bashing on liberals and “leftists” and nothing about their own rights. Meanwhile they enjoy those rights by living in areas run by the very people they hate. Disgusting.
posted by Houndentenor on
No tv station would run racist ads from a white supremacist group. Or antisemitic ads. Or ads claiming that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. None of that would happen. But stations did accept transphobic ads full of lies and ridiculous distortions. They were right to ask the stations not to show them.
That said, progressives have got to learn how to do messaging to combat these lies. How many times are we going to lose to liars like we did with Prop 8 and HERO? At some point we have to realize that most voters don’t hear anything but what they already want to hear and the lies they are being told are not being countered in anything they see or hear. We have to stop assuming that people will figure out that they are being lied to on their own.
posted by Mike in Houston on
My biggest complaint about the Houston Unites campaign was their complete unwillingness to hit back hard… they ran one (1!) ad in direct response to the men in bathrooms ad and didn’t do any media buys on black or hispanic radio. It was almost like they wanted to lose.
Number of Republican Senators arrested for lewd behavior in a public restroom: 1
Number of sexual assaults resulting from equal rights ordinances: ZERO
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think that it is worth noting that non-discrimination laws cover sexual orientation and gender identity have been enacted in a number of states and about a hundred municipalities/counties in recent years.
Houston’s process was remarkably contentious from the get-go, but that has not been the case in most states, counties and municipalities which passed laws similar to HERO.
What is different about Houston’s situation is the existence of a determined, organized, give-no-quarter opposition, backed and funded by conservative Christian churches, Republican politicians like the Texas Governor and Lieutenant Governor, and donors from the hard-right fringe.
I’m sure that a lot of mistakes were made by Houston Unites and others involved in the referendum fight, but the timing of the referendum played a significant part in the defeat.
The referendum was held in a low-turnout election, and it doesn’t look to me (based on what I’ve been able to learn as an outsider) like an effective ID/GOTV effort aimed at turning out younger voters was part of the Houston Unites effort. The average age of the small percentage of Houston voters who turned out in the election was 68. That made defeat inevitable.
Identified, the mistakes that were made serve as a lesson learned for the next effort, but in politics, turnout is everything. Votes don’t count unless cast. It is a lesson those of us who have been involved in politics over the last few decades have learned over and over again.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
Why is the topic of transgender rights and political strategy being debated in this blog, which identifies as a gay forum?
The rainbow flag was created in the late 1970s as one of the first public expressions that a spectrum of sexual minorities were banding together to achieve equal legal rights in society. I think the expression LGBT Rights first emerged in the 1980s, supplanting the earlier expression Gay Rights, which morphed to Gay and Lesbian Rights (at the insistence of various lesbian groups, who felt their voices were being drowned out by gay men), and that soon reversed order to Lesbian and Gay Rights (rationale not entirely clear). Then the Bs and Ts were added. And from time to time other designations have tried to attach with less lasting effect, such as Q (either Queer or Questioning), or A (Asexual or Allies), or I (Interesex).
Today both the terms Gay Rights and LGBT Rights are spoken interchangebly. But people with homosexual affectional and sexual orientation and people with transgendered identity share no known link other than their common history of social oppression and discrimination. We are bonded together under the Rainbow Flag, but we are not fused.
So…finally getting around to my point…while as a gay man, I may rightfully support and fight for the equal rights of transgendered people, I should not be designing the strategy or leading the struggle for their rights. Just as I had to learn 30 years ago to step aside and let my lesbian sisters’ voices be heard, I shouldn’t be sitting around in this Internet Gay Forum using my gay voice to decide what transgendered should be doing. They must move to the front themselves, decide and lead for themselves. I must listen to them, like the rest of society, and then I must be ready to help them as they define the need.
If there are any transgendered voices in this forum, I’ve never recognized them
posted by Jorge on
After the defeat of the ordinance, Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin told the Blade LGBT advocates should call on TV stations not to run anti-trans ads like the kind seen in Houston, an idea Parker said she endorses.
<__>
(Tick.)
(Tock.)
I don’t know. I’d like to think this mayor’s shallow-minded arrogance was the reason the bill was repealed, but I haven’t seen enough examples to say it’s a trend.
By the way, I think Mr. Miller’s post is spot-on, if a little over-lenient.
No tv station would run racist ads from a white supremacist group. Or antisemitic ads. Or ads claiming that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. None of that would happen.
I am quite sure the only reason none of that has ever happened is because TV is a relatively recent invention. There is documented evidence of anti-Irish want ads, for example.
But just because we think we are more enlightened than people were 50 years ago does not mean that we actually are!
I don’t even accept the premise that equal rights for gay people belongs in the same category as equal rights based on race and gender. Almost everyone I’ve ever spoken to about NYC’s first lady Chirlane McCray has had some kind of “huh?” reaction about her history of identifying as a lesbian. The story of Bruce Jenner’s sex change was still considered so unusual that it was a major national news story. Do you really think you on your ivory pedestal can dictate what is and what is not “social responsibility” in public discourse without so much as a public discussion?
As I have said before, I have a bigger problem with the public silence about why equal rights laws for this one group are important in practical terms. Too often all I hear are empty platitudes. I really, really, don’t care what the black Civil Rights Movement has to do with everything and anything one can possibly imagine.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t even accept the premise that equal rights for gay people belongs in the same category as equal rights based on race and gender.
The principle is not “equal rights for this group or that group”, but instead “all citizens should be treated equally under the law”. The question to be addressed is not “Why should gays and lesbians should be treated equally under the law?” (as citizens,gays and lesbians are entitled to equal treatment, unless the government has good and sufficient reason for treating them unequally), but “Why shouldn’t gays and lesbians be treated equally under the law?” If you can’t come up with good and sufficient reasons why gay and lesbian citizens should be treated differently than any other citizens, then …
I think that one of the reasons that the discussion of “equal means equal” became skewed in the popular imagination — allowing Americans of good will to ask “Why should gays and lesbians have equal rights?” — is that the majority have become so used to differential (read discriminatory) treatment that it discrimination seems “normal” and, therefore, “right”.
Almost all Americans of voting age grew up in a time when it was the norm to criminalize sodomy, the norm to fire at will, the norm to ban gays and lesbians from the military, government jobs or certain private-sector jobs such as teaching, the norm to conduct police raids in the bars and other venues where gays and lesbians socialize, and so on. Similarly, almost all Americans of voting age grew up in a time when gays and lesbians were believed to be “weird” (to borrow a description from Judge Posner’s most recent writings about his own evolution in thinking about gays and lesbians) and dangerous. We were described in the popular imagination as child molesters, promiscuous and diseased, mentally ill, abominations, physically and mentally disordered, and so on.
Within that political/legal/cultural environment, when gays and lesbians started to fight for equal treatment under the law (that is, to be treated like other citizens), the discussion got framed, naturally, in terms of “gay rights”, instead of “What the fuck are you people thinking?” But the correct question, then as now, is to be addressed to those who would use the law to discriminate against gays and lesbians, and is “What the fuck are you people thinking?”
As I have said before, I have a bigger problem with the public silence about why equal rights laws for this one group are important in practical terms.
Well, of course. You are too young to have experienced first hand the practical effects of political/legal/cultural discrimination against gays and lesbians in the past, and you are insulated from the discrimination that continues to exist in much of the country at present because you live in a safe, blue area of the country.
But maybe you should listen to older gays and lesbians before you drift off into amnesia.
Just about any gay man my age (that is, pushing 70 hard, and starting to feel it most mornings) will have have experienced what I have experienced. I lived in a tight closet growing up and through my young adult years. When my first lover died in a car crash at the age of 20, I had no one I could talk to about him, and grieved alone, in silence. I was asked about “homosexual inclinations” when I enlisted in the military, and served with the knowledge that I would be dishonorably discharged if discovered. I put my physical and legal safety at risk every time I made contact with another gay man. I was held by the cops for hours at one point and questioned about my relationship with another man, threatened with incarceration, and run out of town. I saw friends kicked out of college for being gay. I saw friends dismissed from the prestigious law firm where I worked because they were gay. I saw gay teachers “let go” from the school my kids attended after a popular and gifted kindergarten teacher was diagnosed (and quickly died) from AIDS. I’ve seem friends cold-shouldered out of “respectable” neighborhoods. I’ve managed political campaigns in which support from gay/lesbian organizations were kept on the down low. Shit, that isn’t half the list, and it isn’t much compared to what most gay men my age experienced.
Things like that are among the “practical terms” of anti-gay discrimination, legal, cultural and political. And those are the practical reasons why “equal means equal” is important.
Reasons beyond the merely “practical” also exist. Read memoirs written by older gay men (Jon Rauch’s “Denial: My 25 Years Without a Soul” and Will Fellows’ “Farm Boys: Lives of Gay Men from the Rural Midwest” come to mind) and you will quickly get a sense of how living in the kind of cultural/legal/political environment that older gay men came up in distorts and harms gay boys. I don’t know if that counts as “practical” in your terms, but it is a good reason to level the playing field to the extent that it can be done though “equal means equal”.
I understand, having read your comments for years on IGF, why you think the way you do. I also understand, however, that the fact that you’ve have lived your life relative safety, young as you are and living in a safe, blue area, means nothing, other than that you don’t “get it”.
Jorge, you really need to take up the invitations you are periodically given on IGF to get out of the gay-safe bubble and go live in what Sarah Palin calls “Real America”. I think you would quickly come to an understanding why “equal means equal” is “ important in practical terms“. A year or two would probably be sufficient exposure. You never know — you might learn something about the country you live in.
posted by Kosh III on
Well said.
I also invite these homocons to move to or visit various conservative paradises.
Stroll down the streets of Oneonta AL holding your husband’s hand; give him a quick kiss on the lips at supper at Mugshots Grill in Meridian MS; put your arm around him and snuggle close during the homily in St Mary Our Lady of Ransom in St. George, SC.
Go on I dare you, I double dog dare you.
posted by Jorge on
The principle is not “equal rights for this group or that group”, but instead “all citizens should be treated equally under the law”…
That is a distinction that in my view throws out decades of civil rights legislation.
I’ll respond to the rest later.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It isn’t a distinction, Jorge. The idea of “equal rights for this group or that group” is a subset of the principle “all citizens should be treated equally under the law”.
posted by Jorge on
I think that one of the reasons that the discussion of “equal means equal” became skewed in the popular imagination — allowing Americans of good will to ask “Why should gays and lesbians have equal rights?” — is that the majority have become so used to differential (read discriminatory) treatment that it discrimination seems “normal” and, therefore, “right”.
I think, rather, the majority has become so used to discriminatory treatment being identified as subjectively wrong (to put it mildly) that when they are unable to see anything “wrong” with discriminatory treatment, they do not see it as discrimination.
Well, of course. You are too young to have experienced first hand the practical effects of political/legal/cultural discrimination against gays and lesbians in the past, and you are insulated from the discrimination that continues to exist in much of the country at present because you live in a safe, blue area of the country.
Personally I think it’s a combination of my family’s matriarchical leanings and me not identifying as gay until well into my adulthood.
If I were to consider my parents’ religious skepticism in isolation, I might agree with you, but I think the Catholic Church is more supportive of gays’ civil rights than a religious skeptic Hispanic–it’s not exactly a safe tossup. There is also my parents’ awareness of both racial discrimination and religious division in this country. If I were in an area where we were more racially isolated, they might perhaps be more conservative, but they would also be more likely to reject any prevailing model just because they consider it “white,” while a combination of racial integration (i.e., others like them) and the relative distance of religious models would predict an more likely acceptance of discriminatory models.
Privilege is not simply a matter of the time one lives in, or where one lives. There is plenty of discrimination here–the underground kind that isn’t recognized because it is not overt. Things that can only be solved by social engineering. All the laws in the world won’t change that. Only direct observation of people’s lives will create the will to change.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I’ve given up trying to unpack your nonsense Jorge.
“TV is a relatively new invention”… 75+ years is not “new” in my book.
posted by Doug on
And the “no irish need apply” signs date from 1850 to early 1920’s which is 90+ years ago at the latest.
posted by Jorge on
I’ve given up trying to unpack your nonsense Jorge.
It doesn’t reflect well on you when you blame other people for your own faults. Don’t try to take on jobs that are beyond your skill level without asking for feedback.
If TV is not new, then it stands to reason that Houndentenor is wrong, and TV stations would run KKK ads.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Again with the nonsense.
TV is not new and TV stations ARE free to run whatever ads they like within broadcast guidelines… that they choose not to run issue ads for the KKK is a sign that it’s bad for business. That’s today. Many years ago — and I know this will come as a shock to someone that says TV is new — stations across the South refused to run programming that portrayed blacks in a positive light.
You might have even heard of a certain TV series, called “Star Trek” — which was cancelled due to poor ratings after only 3 seasons. What you probably are unaware of: the interracial kiss between Kirk & Uhura doomed the series. That episode was not aired in the South — and stations refused to run the series at it’s regular prime time… relegating it to 10PM on Friday’s and killing the ratings.
And don’t assume that because I don’t wish to deconstruct your latest word salad, that it’s beyond my skill level. It’s simply beyond my caring at this point.
posted by Jorge on
And don’t assume that because I don’t wish to deconstruct your latest word salad, that it’s beyond my skill level. It’s simply beyond my caring at this point.
You’re saying I shouldn’t say something to annoy you when you set out to annoy me.
Sorry, Mike, I do retaliate. No, I don’t really believe it’s beyond your skill level to ask questions. I do think it places you at risk of being “burned”, and I say without animosity that I look for those kind of inconsistencies.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
By the way, what in the hell is going on with conservative stubble-beards? Paul Ryan the other day, and now Tony Perkins. Is pseudo manly the new gay?
posted by Jorge on
By the way, what in the hell is going on with conservative stubble-beards? Paul Ryan the other day
*SWOON!* Do you think he has a new mistress, or is his wife asserting her family time?
posted by Houndentenor on
I commented elsewhere that I read it as giving up. (Remember when Gore grew his beard. It was an open admission that he was done with politics.) But I was informed that it’s the start of hunting season and that’s most likely what the beard is for. It will be gone by spring.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
Minnesota is an interesting example to this conversation.
It has some liberal urban centers, like Minneapolis or Duluth. Yet, once you leave these cities, things are very, very different for the LGBT community.
Statewide civil rights have been on the books since 1993, the first state to include the “T”. Mainly because the twin cities LGBT community has gotten good with doing what has to get done to pass statewide bills, and fund raising for non profits and things like pride.
Yet, the LGBT community in greater Minnesota, especially outside of blue and purple enclaved, has a much harder time existing, let alone fund raising.
People dont feel safe in these red communities to come out. People who do come out, find their careers and friendships negatively impacted.
Most of these city governments would never pass a LGBT inclusive rights bill, if we were in the same boat as say, Texas.
many local school boards in greater minnesota dont want to deal with LGBT bullying, so we get the “they dont exist” and no “big city problems” arguements.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Interesting. It is kind of the reverse, to some extent, in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin’s statewide politics have been dominated by Republicans since 2010 (Mark Pocan dubbed the state government “FitzWalkerstan”, and it is apt) so we are more likely to see pigs than see anything pass at a statewide level. We’ve had good success in the 25,000+ cities, though, passing non-discrimination and public accommodations ordinances including the “T” over the last five years.
Madison is liberal and gay friendly, Milwaukee not so liberal but gay friendly enough, I guess. The Milwaukee ring communities are uniformly abysmal swamps of conservative Christian politics. The smaller cities (Eau Claire, Green Bay, Janesville, LaCrosse, etc.) are okay, as I understand it, and those are the areas we’ve been working. The rural areas differ from one another, and many of them sound similar to those you describe in Minnesota, but others (like the area I live in) are fine. We won’t see our county board or the small towns pass anything supporting gays and lesbians, but we don’t live in fear or need to stay in the closet.
I get you about rural Minnesota, though. My father’s family is from the Madelia-New-Ulm-St. James area, and boy howdy. I wouldn’t live there on a bet.
posted by Jim Michaud on
It’s so cool reading about various states’ political makeup. Every state seems to have areas of differing political influences. Here in Maine, Tom, substitute Portland and Bangor for Madison and Milwaukee respectively. Aroostook County and western Penobscot County can be the Milwaukee ring. The smaller cities can be Augusta (our capital), Biddeford and Waterville. Lewiston (my home town) is a glaring exception. The “Dirty Lew”, and to a lesser extent across the river Auburn, is the second biggest metro area in the state, but not gay friendly at all. Socially conservative and heavily French Catholic, it went thumbs down on all the gay referendums (save one). Unlike you guys in the Midwest, not only do we have the urban/rural split, we also have coastal vs. inland. Coastal places (including quite tiny ones) are very gay friendly. Inland not so much. Gay friendly places in Maine are: the bigger cities (except you know where), college towns (like Orono) and tourist towns (like Bar Harbor).
posted by JohnInCA on
In unrelated news (and apologies if someone else has already mentioned this), a new gay republican is running for senate. Chrys Kefalas in Maryland.
Will he receive the attention that DeMaio received here, or will he receive the attention of every gay republican *not* named DeMaio received?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Keflas seems to be positioned to run a viable campaign, and I hope that he is vigorously supported by Republican-aligned homocons, including, of course, Stephen. It would help if self-declared pro-equality Republicans like Paul Singer would lend a hand, too.
Kefalas has been an advocate for marriage equality for years and, as a Senator, would be in a position to become a change agent in the party, and seems determined to take up the challenge. On Obergefel, for example, Kefalas had this to say:
Assuming that Keflas will take the fight to party social conservatives, as Dan Innes did in New Hampshire, and not pull a DeMaio, running from LGBT issues with both legs, Keflas is exactly the kind of pro-equality champion that Republican-aligned homocons need to encourage.
It is probably unnecessary to say this, but Keflas’s principle opponents in the Republican primary – Kathy Szeliga, Richard Douglas, and Anthony Seda — are all staunch opponents of “equal means equal”.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Working for the Obama Justice Department & writing speeches for Eric Holder would likely disqualify him with primary voters even without teh gay factor…
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I suppose, Mike, and I don’t hold out much hope that we will see homocons offering much in the way of support to Keflas in this election cycle.
But, dammit, they should.
if the Republican-aligned homocons want the party to change, then, sooner rather than later, they are going to have to start providing meaningful support for Republican candidates who want to change the party.
It just doesn’t cut it for self-proclaimed pro-equality Republicans (Paul Singer comes to mind) to talk loftily about changing the party but giving their support to anti-equality candidates like Rubio while writing off pro-equality Republican candidates.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Keflas, incidentally, announced his support of the Equality Act of 2015, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That puts Keflas squarely at odds with the so-called “libertarian” Republicans, to whom the Equality Act is anathema (see “Yes, the Bakers Again”, Stephen H. Miller, October 16, 2015).
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I was recently having a conversation with someone — I was visiting family in a small town, located in beautiful Ottertail County, MN — about the Equality Act.
Their is one person in this town who everyone assumes is openly gay (or Jewish or Muslim, or all three…the rumor mill was a bit indecisive when I was in town). People in town generally avoid talking to him, local charities (a museum) and public schools find reasons not to accept his offer for help, and their are few very types of jobs people are comfortable with him having.
In light of this ugly reality. I suspect that many LGBT people (in west-central Minnesota) looking at him, probably elect to remain in the closet, deep in the closet.
Their are some well-to-do gay couples who vacation in the Minnesota lakes region (with a lake home or cabin or some such thing), but live/work in the Twin Cities area. They are more likely to be openly gay, but, again, do not really care about the local LGBT community and can be dismissed by the general population as evidence of just how corrupt things are with them “big city folk”
I suspect that — absent some pretty significant changes in attitudes and the like, the Equality Act (as it stands) is probably not going to get much support from politicians living in the more conservative Congressional districts/States.