Ross of This Space for Rent doesn’t endorse my view:
To continue with what has set me off, I think that comparing the Stonewall Democrats to the Log Cabin Republicans isn’t a “good point”, it’s fucking ridiculous, and Chris Cain needs take that back. There just simply isn’t a comparison between the Stonewalls, and the Log Cabins. The Stonewalls are brave enough to fight on the right side – The LCR just want to have their cake and eat it too.
Here’s why: The LCR are not courageous by any standard of the word. They’re a bunch of greedy sellouts who routinely support the party that has, built into their platform, a serious anti-gay rights agenda, because they’re happy to screw poor people in order to keep more money after taxes. They’re assholes.
Ross asks if “the Republicans give a flying fuck what the LCR think?” I don’t know, but the question misses the point. Whether or not the RNC cares, the Log Cabin Republicans did the right thing this year by criticizing Bush, the GOP platform and the Federal (anti) marriage amendment, and for that they deserve praise. And to describe them as supporting the Republicans in a year when they’ve been persistently criticizing the Republican presidential candidate in an ultra-close race is simply unfair.
Ross writes:
First of all, by definition someone who rejects same-sex marriage is not a consistent defender of gay rights. Nor has Kerry been very supportive on “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But without any doubt, Kerry is better than Bush.
Does that mean Kerry should get a free pass from all criticism? Is being better than Bush good enough? I don’t think so.
Bush, by opposing gay marriage and supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment, attacked gays and deserved to be criticized by everyone, not just by Democrats. The Log Cabin Republicans were one of the few (or perhaps the only) Republican groups to step up to the bat and call Bush on his garbage. I think that’s praiseworthy.
Right now, the single most important fight for gay rights in the USA is the fight for marriage equality; and the single most important battlefield is Massachusetts, the only state in the union in which same-sexers can be legally wed, and the most likely place for same-sexers to retain that right.
And Kerry stabbed lesbians and gays in the back by opposing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, as well as by supporting homophobic anti-equality ballot measures all over the country. (Like Bush, Kerry has since stepped back a little from his most extreme anti-gay position).
Let’s get some perspective on this: What Bush did was to support an anti-gay amendment that had no chance of passing. Kerry, in contrast, has supported anti-gay measures and laws that have a very real chance of passing. So why the heck should Bush be criticized while Kerry is given a pass?
When push came to shove, the Log Cabin Republicans were willing to turn and criticize their own President in an election year because he supported anti-gay laws. I think that’s cool – even though I disagree with the LCRs on every other issue.
When push came to shove, the Stonewall Democrats put partisan politics above supporting justice and equality for lesbians and gays. To borrow a phrase, I have to call serious bull-shit on that. It’s easy to criticize the other party’s candidate for being anti-gay. The real test is: Will you criticize your own candidate if he takes an anti-gay positions?
This year, the Stonewall Democrats failed that test.
Right now, the single most important fight for gay rights in the USA is the fight for marriage equality;
Is it? I’m not sure.
Don’t get me wrong, I resent like HELL having to tick”single” as my marital status when I’m not. But I really don’t ahve a problem with civil unions as a concept, IF it means I get them. Realistically, we aren’t going to see gay marriage in my lifetime. (Half this country is voting for Bush, for pity’s sake. You really think we’re going to get marriage when we can’t even get hate crimes?) I think we could have had a fighting chance for civil unions.
Now, however, for one massachusetts, there;s Missouri, Georgia, Louisiana, Ohio, Virginia etc etc not only denying marriage but for spiteful “good” measure, denying civil unions. The FMA denies unions, despite what Bush implies.
And they start young: as Atrios quoted from the Post: Asked to name the country’s biggest problem, 12-year-old Vivian Resto said, “Homosexuals. I think it’s kind of gross, and my mom and I believe it should be a man and a woman.”
I don’t like separate but equal either, and I want to be married to my partner legally, as I am in every other way. BUT, what’s wrong with having done it a step at a time? Why COULDN’T we have started with a movement for civil unions and then work up toe marriage? Now we’re effing screwed because we aren’t getting anything and worse, WE ARE LOSING WHAT WE HAD.
I think it’s great that folks in MA are married. But since their marraiges are not recognized federally or in other states, what’s really the difference between that and the DP I can file in California?
I was pleasantly suprised to hear that the LCR were not supporting Bush Jr, but there’s something strange in your thinking when you say:
“And to describe them as supporting the Republicans in a year when they’ve been persistently criticizing the Republican presidential candidate in an ultra-close race is simply unfair.”
I think at least part of the point that Ross may have been trying to make was that the LCR get no credit at all, simply because they are Republicans. Sure, they’re ‘taking a stand’ in some very limited way, but what does taking that stand mean in the face of supporting Bush Jr. in the past, and continuing to support the Republican party, BY BEING REPUBLICANS, in the present and future? An overly dramatic comparison would be if some faction of the Nazi party had said, “Hey, we agree with Hitler about the Jews, but we don’t think we should be treating gays in the same way.” Sure, in a way that would be laudable–but they would still be supporting the hatred of the Jews!
If the LCR woke up and recognized that the Republican Party Platform has often been one of intolerance toward gays and all sorts of others, and switched parties, then they would be given some credit.
This of course says nothing to disagree with your assessment of taking Kerry to task. That seems perfectly reasonable.
I dunno, jp. I think a more apt analogy would be if there was a group of Jews in the Nazi party that said, “We support everything about Hitler except his plans for Jews.” See, the Jews in question would be supporting members of a party that is actively hostile to them. The LCR’s are supporting members of a party that is actively hostile to them – granted, no plans for killing them, but still hostile towards them.
If the LCR woke up and recognized that the Republican Party Platform has often been one of intolerance toward gays and all sorts of others, and switched parties, then they would be given some credit.
But this assumes that one is gay first and a citizen second. And Ross’s comments that Amp posted show a completely bigotted, intolerant and ignorant view of Republicans, that one is Republican because of greed and screw the poor. Would he chide a Democrat, who agreed with all of the non-greedy views of the Democrats but was an avid pro-lifer, for not jumping ship to the Republicans because of one issue?
To say that the LCRs would be brave to leave the Republican party would be doing exactly what many gays don’t want to be doing; defining themselves solely by their sexuality. Why should I give up my views on trade, taxes and foreign policy, none of which inherently have to do with my sexuality? Especially for a party who, while they may be generally better than the Republicans on gay rights, aren’t perfect?
I am a member of the LCR and proud of it. And I will not be voting for Bush, but I will stay registered as a Republican so I can continue to reward Republicans who are gay friendly and punish those that aren’t in the primaries. Or maybe Ross forgot about that valuable part of politics in his rant to perpetuate negative stereotypes.
I think the real courage of the LCR was breaking with GOP party discipline. These people are rarely off-message, and kept very much in line. By contrast, look at all the public handwringing that’s been going on among the Democrats whenever the wind blows. Why should the Stonewall Democrats go out of their contribute to that, if their ultimate goal is to win a national campaign?
What Bush did was to support an anti-gay amendment that had no chance of passing.
I think this really misses the point. What Bush did was to make homophobia a rallying cry for his party: he used homophobia to mobilize his base and draw in people who don’t support many of his positions but happen to be bigots. When a major political party casts gays and lesbians as menaces to families and to the American way of life, it reinforces and legitimizes homophobia. That has both policy and broader social implications.
I’m not saying that Kerry should be let off the hook, but I think you’re understating how important the rhetorical differences are.
That’s fair, Sally. As I said, I do think that Bush is worse than Kerry on lesbian and gay rights, and one of the ways he’s worse is that to appease his base he has to appeal to homophobes. (Bush’s recent, insincere-seeming support of civil unions aside).
IT, I think that the recent gains in same-sex marriage will, in the short term, have the result of making civil unions more acceptable in many states. In many ways, civil unions – which two years ago were a radical-left idea – have now become a mainstream idea, due to the advances made in gay marriage.
True, some states are now banning civil unions – but frankly, I don’t think that most of those states would have passed civil union laws anyway (Georgia?).
It’s hard to say with any certainty, but it’s definitely possible that civil unions will come about quicker as a result of the same-sex marriage “crisis.”
I know this sounds naive, but I think a lot of Kerry’s anti-gay marriage posturing is just an empty posture, too. Watch support click past 50%, and watch his position change.
And yes, that irritates me, but pandering is part of politics. Kerry’s willing to step outside the box and support unpopular positions on more things than most politicians, but he clearly thinks the homophobic rhetoric is an attempt to scare and distract people so it’s not worth his time to take a principled stand against such rhetoric. It’s a weird calculation–but it goes to show that he’s the sort of man who at least knows the meaning of the word “priorities”.
That sounds like I don’t think gay rights are a priority. I do. But I can see that addressing the hysteria over the word “marriage” is less of a priority than say, stemming the rising tide of bloodshed that Bush has brought.
Right now, the single most important fight for gay rights in the USA is the fight for marriage equality
Really. How’s that, now? How is it more important than other civil rights, like employment and housing nondiscrimination? How is it more important than hate crimes legislation and enforcement? Because to me, those are more important: they affect more people, and without them, the right to marry is more or less meaningless. Few will marry if it means losing a job or a home.
Marriage is high profile, but it is not more important than other issues, let alone “most important.”
As for the Log Cabin Republicans v. the Stonewall Democrats – whatever. The Log Cabin Republicans don’t deserve praise because they have the most sensitive gag reflex among the Republicans who’ve been swallowing George Bush’s bullshit for the past four years. Stonewall Democrats did not fail because they weighed other issues more heavily than one which was most important only to a relatively privileged subset of gay voters.
(Note the “relatively,” anyone who would like to complain about being called “privileged.”)
The measure isn’t “will you criticize your own candidate” – it’s what you will tolerate before you criticize your own candidate. Log Cabin Republicans do not deserve praise because a candidate finally sunk below even their low standards. Stonewall Democrats do not deserve condemnation because their candidate remained above their higher ones.
Half this country is voting for Bush, for pity’s sake.
Half the voters may be voting Bush, but millions of Americans don’t vote at all, so this really isn’t acurate.
I’ll spare you all, just this once, my opinion that Kerry is a hopeless chickenshit on this issue, as well as on so many others. :p
That’s sparing?? ;)
Kerry’s problem is the two-party system problem. There’s already a lot of talk that even if he wins fair and square, he’s going to have half the voters harrumphing that he’s not legitimately elected for various reasons (the lib’rul media only broke the al Qaqaa story because it wanted Kerry to win! he wouldna won if only those dang minorities didn’t vote!). I’m doing poll-watching in a swing state and fully expect another recount drama unless the youth, minority, elderly and new-voter turnout is overwhelming enough to create a landslide.
Gay marriage is lightning in a bottle for a national candidate who has to appeal to the middle. There are traditional Democratic constituencies, notably religious African-Americans (in particular Caribbean-Americans) who have real issues with gay marriage. Yeah, Kerry’s not perfect. No Presidential candidate can be, except in retrospect. So work on your local elected officials to support gay marriage, or civil unions and then, after people get used to it, gay marriage. Create the momentum from the grassroots.
3rd Parties should be part of that momentum. Hell, maybe even single-issue 3rd Parties in the Alice Paul tradition should be part of it. I don’t think it’s good for one political party to have a monopoly on the “correct side” of certain issues. That’s how you end up with chickenshit views on same-sex marriage like what we have from Kerry in the first place.
Supreme Court!!!!! (particularly since Rehnquist likely to die or step down within the year)
Appellate Courts!!!!!
I would like to remind people, once again, of the power of the courts in minority issues, including the lgbt and women’s reproductive rights issues. It may be even more important for the lgbt community, since the likelihood is high that there would be a significant backlash should Roe v Wade be superceded by a decision denying privacy rights, since 95% of women really really want their contraceptives (Griswold, 1965) even if not that many would admit to wanting abortion available to them in some situation short of imminent death. I don’t see non-lgbt voters vigorously sticking up for the rights of lgbt anytime soon.
Strategically, I consider it wise to give Kerry a pass on his temporizing, encourage lgbt turnout, particularly in those states where they would STILL BE ILLEGAL if the SCOTUS hadn’t decided Lawrence v Texas 2003 (that’s my state and 7 others). I do not doubt that Kerry would appoint some friendly judges, particularly since he must court the more numerous Dem prochoice women and men vote, and the legal rationale to date for lgbt and women’s repro rights has been pretty much the same, ie, privacy rights.
I can forgive the 60 years and older LCR crowd for hanging in there with the R party, since in the 70s there really was NO difference between the two parties on the glbt issues. But times have changed, and I admit I find it hard to understand young out gays who vote R. when 99% of the party is against them. Unfortunately even the moderate Rs tend to vote at their party’s call in judge confirmations, etc.