From activist/blogger Michael Petrelis, on the upcoming Washington, DC, Democratic Party fundraiser being hosted by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and others:
It is time to close the LGBT checkbook and ATM for the Democratic Party, until such time as the party actually delivers some real legislative and presidential-driven changes and advancement for LGBT people.
But if LGBT beltway operatives didn't raise money unconditionally for the Democratic Party, what would they do?
From Ryan Sager, Being Barack Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry. It's excellent. Here's an excerpt:
And, you know what, they (we) will pretty much take it. Just like with Bill Clinton...
If we generally like someone - and the vast majority of gay people like Obama and voted for him - we're far more likely to accept an apology from them. ...
[By the same token, if you didn't like President Bush, you were certainly never going to forgive him for supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment (even though Bush only fake-supported it to appease his base and then made sure it never moved forward in Congress - arguably making him better on gay rights than Clinton).]
Another factor at work is the "false consensus bias." It's a shame the things Obama has had to do out of political necessity, you tell yourself, but I know deep down he cares about gay rights ...
Of course, this is bull. Experiments have shown that we're all terrible intuitive psychologists and extremely prone to projecting our views onto others (that is, in the absence of evidence, we assume people think what we do).
Obama, in fact, has really been the master of false consensus bias.
Read the whole thing.
As if to prove the above: The AP reports, Obama fends off criticism from gay supporters
Trying to quell that anger, Obama was set on Wednesday to sign small changes in benefits available to same-sex couples....Partners, however, would not have access to primary health insurance or to pensions....
...the administration defended the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to reject another state's legalized gay marriages and blocks federal Washington from recognizing those state-based unions. Overturning it is a top legislative target for gay activists. But Justice Department lawyers used incest as a reason to support the law.
[White House press secretary Robert] Gibbs argued that the administration had no choice but to defend existing laws and said Obama still believes it should be repealed. But he also would give no specific timeframe for doing that, or for overturning the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy in effect since 1993....
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., defended Obama against criticism that he has been slow to deliver on his campaign promises.
Furthermore. From Dale Carpenter, The Least He Could Do.
The New York Times on Tuesday called Obama out for his about-face support of the Defense of Marriage Act:
The Obama administration, which came to office promising to protect gay rights but so far has not done much, actually struck a blow for the other side last week. It submitted a disturbing brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law that protects the right of states to not recognize same-sex marriages and denies same-sex married couples federal benefits. The administration needs a new direction on gay rights.
Later that same day, the Washington Post reported on its website (and then in Wednesday's paper) that the administration would extend federal benefits to unmarried partners of federal workers. Will that appease LGBT Democratic liberals, who have shown themselves extremely easy to appease in the name of party unity? Stay tuned.
More. The Wall Street Journal clarifies, "The president doesn't have the power to grant gay and lesbian partners of federal workers health care and many other benefits." That's because "The government is prevented from granting many federal benefits under the Defense of Marriage Act." But, the Journal adds, "he could take other steps, such as offering family services like language training and evacuation assistance for State Department workers." Woo-hoo!
But fear not. For Pride week, Obama is signing a directive banning discrimination against LGBT federal workers (Clinton signed an executive order covering gay workers and Bush left it in place; Obama's directive includes the transgendered). Change we can believe in!
Much examination has been done of late on the strategic missteps taken by Equality California and others opposing anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives. For example, statistician and political analyst Nate Silver writes:
When gay marriage is polled, it is almost always framed as a positive right, as in: "should the government permit Adam and Steve to get married?".... But there is a different way to frame the question that is no less fair, and flips the issue on its head. Namely: "should the government be allowed to prohibit Adam and Steve from getting married?" ... And it turns out that if you frame a polling question in this particular way...you get a very different set of responses. Take a look at what happens:
When USA Today asks whether gay marriage is a private decision, or rather whether government has the right to pass laws which regulate it, 63 percent say it's a private decision. This contrasts significantly with all other polling on gay marriage. The highest level of support gay marriage has received in the more traditional, positive-rights framing is 49 percent....
[A]dvocates for same-sex marriage can do a better job of framing their argument. Generally speaking, appeals to government noninterference are fairly popular; people don't like government telling them what they do and they don't have the right to do....
Equality California was still stuck in the positive rights paradigm. Gay marriage was something given to California by the state Supreme Court in its benevolent wisdom, not an intrinsic (negative) right for which the government had a duty of noninterference.
And this week, the Washington Post's God and Government blog posted Gay Rights Groups Ignored Religion on Prop. 8, noting a report that shows:
Gay-rights groups made a major strategic error in their failed effort to stop California's Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage, by ignoring the faith community and trying to make their case purely on secular grounds....
During the Prop. 8 campaign, the report said, pro-gay religious leaders who opposed the measure were told not to use the religious language of their traditions to voice their opposition to the measure and, when they were finally encouraged to speak out as people of faith, it was too late.
I'm aware that hindsight is 20/20. But we'll see if, going forward, the strategic mistakes of the past - mistakes premised on "progressive" tropes of demanding positive rights from government and appeals to secularism - are corrected.
Maura Flynn makes The Republican Case for Gay Marriage. She writes:
As a nation we're at a crossroads, no question. Our banking industry scrambles to escape quasi-nationalization, our auto industry is in the process of being nationalized, and we have instituted, of all things, a Car Czar (note: it took Russia roughly 300 years to stack up so many czars). If that isn't bad enough, nationalized health care is on the table again.
So as the Republic devolves and those with the means contemplate hightailing it to the Caymans, it's probably time to ask ourselves what it is to be "conservative."
One need only read the comments on this site to know that there are two fundamental schools of thought here. Some of us believe that to be conservative is to defend freedom, preserve individual liberty, and keep government small. Others believe that being conservative is about electing a government that will defend and enforce "traditional" values.
And she adds:
The Republican Party has made a huge mistake in advocating a kind of Cafeteria Constitutionalism. (I'll take some guns, no helmet laws, please, a free market, and...yuck, hold the gay marriage!). One can't legitimately invoke the Constitution to oppose federally mandated sex education, and then use the federal government to impose school prayer. Leave that fair-weather-federalism to the Left.
This is the type of argument a movement seeking legal equality for gay people ought to be making. But, of course, it's something the LGBT Democratic Party fundraisers at the Human Rights Campaign have decided isn't worth any effort.
More. Of course, maybe HRC should focus first on defending gay legal equality to the Great Liberal President to whom they pledged unconditional LBGT support during the election. From AMERICAblog: Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children.
Not working to build up support on the right is what has allowed the left to walk all over us. Eggs and baskets, boys and girls. Eggs and baskets.
More. LGBT myopia: We don't need Dick Cheney's support. LGBT progressives are confused: how would achieving marriage equality with Republican support serve the Democratic Party?
The Washington Post's "God in Government" blog takes note of the dismissive response from LGBT activists to former VP Dick Cheney's recently voiced support for same-sex marriage:
The Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, welcomed Cheney's comments through gritted teeth.
"It is unfortunate that it took the former vice president two terms in office, two terms that were the most anti-LGBT in history, before he decided to stand up for equality," said Joe Solmonese, president of the HRC. "That being said, we welcome his voice to the table on this issue and hope the remaining right-wing opponents of marriage equality see how completely out of touch they have become."
Of course, it might have been a more effective response in terms of swaying "remaining right-wing opponents" if Solmonese had been able to restrain himself from denigrating Cheney while welcoming his support.
And by the way, was the Bush-Cheney administration really the "most anti-LGBT in history?" Bush supported a federal amendment against gay marriage that failed to pass (Cheney broke with Bush and didn't support the amendment). But Bill Clinton signed the odious Defense of Marriage Act and bragged about it in campaign ads that ran in the South. Clinton also signed legislation to ban gays from openly serving in the military ("don't ask, don't tell"); previously, the ban on homosexuals had been military policy but not federal law.
More. Reader "Bobby" comments on whether Bush/Cheney was the most anti-gay administration ever, as Solmonese claims:
Here's what Concerned Women of America (an anti-gay group) has to say:
"In his first 100 days as President, Mr. Bush:
* appointed a homosexual activist to head the White House office on AIDS;
* failed to overturn a single Clinton executive order dealing with homosexuality;
* continued the Clinton policy of issuing U.S. Department of Defense regulations to combat "anti-gay harassment" in a military that is required by law to keep homosexuals out of the armed forces;
* presided over the appointment of a liberal homosexual activist and "gays"-in the-military crusader to oversee the choice of civilian personnel at the Pentagon. ...
Is there any doubt that Solmonese is engaging in Big Lie partisanship at the expense of creating a greater bi-partisan constituency for gay legal equality? And why is the "LGBT community" generously funding him in order to do so?
Dick Cheney "takes a position that places him at a more progressive tilt than President Obama" regarding same-sex marriage, according to Sam Stein at the left-liberal Huffington Post. Cheney supports allowing states to let gay couples wed, which Obama opposes, although Obama supports civil unions. As Stein observes:
Cheney has made similar arguments in support of gay marriage in the past, including during the run-up to the 2004 election. But his current comments come at a moment when the Republican Party and conservative movement is increasingly split on the issue. Bush recount lawyer Ted Olsen and John McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt have both argued in favor of gay marriage. The religious right, as expected, remains opposed.
Those who think the Republican Party is hopeless are wrong, but repeated declarations by LGBT Democratic operatives that we MUST support, and only support, their party is a strategy bent on ensuring that the GOP remains the hand-maiden of the religious right, while assuring Obama that he need do only the most minimal in order to maintain the unconditional support of national LGBT fundraising fronts (since he is, after all, busy with far more important tasks such as nationalizing the economy, spending us into generational mega-debt and regulating how we sit at our desks).
And counting... Per the Washington Examiner, by one report, 218 gay service members have been discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" (lie and hide) policy since Obama and the overwhelmingly Democratic Congress took office. But if they end the ban, what would they promise LGBT activists - again - in 2010...and 2012?
Furthermore. A revealing comment from reader "SStocky":
Every time I'm solicited for Equality Florida I ask for information on what they're doing with Republicans who control the state government - who have they met with lately, what potential allies are they grooming, who's their contact in the governor's office? No answers are forthcoming and, of course, my wallet stays closed. Let's face it, no major civil rights legislation has ever passed without significant bipartisan support, yet the professional gay activists would have us believe putting all our eggs in the Democratic-liberal, left basket is the path to victory.
When will the community wake up and see they're being taken? When will serious efforts be made to reach out to all reasonable people of both parties and independents rather than continually playing the insider Democrat game? I hope it will be in my lifetime, but I'm not holding my breath.
When both parties were unwelcoming, we had a more or less bipartisan movement. Since the Democrats learned to use inclusive rhetoric and toss in a few (very few) bones, "LGBT" fundraising has been taken over by Democratic operatives whose allegiance is to serving their party. Like this reader, I'm not overly optimistic that things will change soon.
"Praise for Sotomayor" proclaims the Washington Blade's headline, followed by "Activists 'encouraged' by Supreme Court pick, despite thin record on LGBT issues."
In other words, the Democratic Party loyalists leading our LGBT activist groups are swooning over self-described "wise Latina" Sonia Sotomayor even though her record of ruling on behalf of gay legal equality is nonexistent. In the words of D'Arcy Kemnitz, head of the National LGBT Bar Association, "As LGBT Americans, we are excited to have more diversity on the bench."
And she does, after all, speak for all of us "LGBT Americans," right?
I suppose these left-liberal advocates are heartened by Sotomayor's disrespect for property rights and support for race-based preferential treatment, as part of what Human Rights Campaign leader Joe Solmonese praises as "Judge Sotomayor's record of fair-minded decisions." From this perspective, if you favor expanded government confiscation of private property and support blatant discrimination by government against white males, you are - wait for it - a progressive. And thus you must also be in favor of gay equality.
Well, probably she is, but Supreme Court justices have a way of ruling counter to what many of their early supporters expected, especially when they lack a record on a particular issue. Let's hope that on our particular issue that doesn't turn out to be the case.
More. The Washington Post reports that:
Sotomayor's religion - and her lack of a record on abortion rights cases - has helped spark some concern among liberal interest groups that she may not be sufficiently pro-choice for some of them. The White House on Thursday offered strong, if vague, reassurances that she would support abortion rights.
But apparently, no need to reassure LGBT groups, since they're clearly in the bag.
Just to follow up on Jonathan's fine post below, when someone labeled a "social conservative" like David Blakenhorn opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions, he's a bigot. When Barack Obama takes the same position, he's a "fierce advocate" for gays and lesbians.
This same hypocrisy was evident over the brouhaha regarding Miss California USA Carrie Prejean, leading to Donald Trump's assertion of an inconvenient truth: that when Prejean said she believes marriage is only between a man and a woman, she "gave a very, very honest answer when asked a very tough question at the recent pageant. It's the same answer that the President of the United States gave."
We don't know how Prejean would have responded to a question about civil unions (or, as Obama likes to put forth as a major sign of his pro-gay sympathies, his support for same-sex hospital visitation rights). Liberals like to claim that the difference between gay-marriage-opposing conservatives and gay-marriage-opposing "progressives" is really, really important (really), involving tone and nuance.
Regardless, it shouldn't be much of a surprise following so many denounciations directed at Prejean that, in response, she does become a spokeperson for the anti-gay marriage movement. And wouldn't that make all sides feel happy and vindicated.
Update: May 20
California voters on May 19 soundly defeated all of the tax hike initiatives that Equality California, with its unerring sense of wrong-headedness, had invested its "brand" in promoting. Looks like EQCA's involvement is the kiss of death for whatever position it favors on statewide ballot initatives.
California voters did pass an initiative to punish their
spendthrift legislators by limiting their pay increases, but
leaders of the EQCA alliance groups will probably give themselves
even bigger
raises in 2010 than they did after the passage of anti-gay
Prop. 8.
--------
Equality California, the statewide alliance that so badly mismanaged efforts to defeat the Golden State's gay-marriage-banning Prop 8 last November, has a new cause. My partner just received an email from the group urging him to vote for all six California budget propositions placed on the ballot by Schwarzenegger and Democratic legislators to "raise revenue" in the wake of a severe budget crisis - a crisis caused in no small measure by huge spending increases over the past few years under said governor and legislators. From a Wall Street Journal op-ed:
Several months ago, lawmakers were forced to tackle a $42 billion deficit that stems from a 35% general fund spending increase since Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger replaced Mr. Davis. The deficit is $4 billion larger than the one that helped end Mr. Davis's political career. After wrangling over what to do, the governor and legislature struck a deal that raises income and sales taxes as well as car-registration fees. In all, the tax increases will cost Californians some $13 billion over the next three years.
The lawmakers punted the decision to enact much of the budget deal to voters in six ballot initiatives - most of which are behind in the polls by nine percentage points or more.
EQCA says it is taking no official position on the propositions but is passing along a very professionally designed argument with the "unanimous recommendations of our LGBT legislators." (They don't say how many of the four LGBT legislators are L, G, B, or T.)
Taxpayer groups oppose Prop. 1A, in particular. So why are gay-rights groups jumping on the Establishment tax-hike bandwagon? Fealty to state employee unions, in large measure. Left foot first, friends. Left foot first.