Gays, Dems hit rough patch

[kweerwolf]

The once happy marriage – or is it civil union? – between gays and the Democratic Party has hit a rocky stretch. And while it is perhaps too early to ask, "Can this marriage be saved?" there is no question that the relationship is at its lowest ebb since the rapture of Bill Clinton's courtship during his quest for the 1992 presidential nomination.

Over that period of time the LGBT community has supplied not only votes, but also huge amounts of money, and large numbers of motivated campaign workers to the party. Only African Americans have been a more loyal Democratic constituency. But the return on that investment to that community has been minimal, more symbolism than substance, according to some observers.

The antigay military policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was enacted while Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. President Clinton eagerly embraced the Defense of Marriage Act and later faulted candidate John Kerry for not being antigay enough on the marriage issue during the 2004 campaign.

"What the Democrats have delivered of substance has been changes in bureaucratic rules and regulations in the executive branch and in the markup of bills," said Ken Sherrill, a political scientist at Hunter College, part of the City University of New York. His academic focus is LGBT electoral issues and he is a longtime Democratic activist.

http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=629

[jackpan1260]

1. I'll vote for any democrat over any republican anyday

I often don't agree with the way democrats treat LGBT issues, but I never agree with the way republicans treat LGBT issues.

[derby378]

2. Especially gay Republicans

They're easy to spot if you know what to look for. Visualize Roy Cohn...

[Minnesota Libra]

3. I agree completely - I may or may not agree with all Democrats but......

....I DEFINITELY NEVER agree with a republican. :toast:

[mitchtv]

4. voting is one thing

It's those checks to the DNC that might start getting light. I for one will contribute to my local candidates-directly

[cboy4]

7. I agree with you Mitch

;)

[closeupready]

5. Myopia sets in whenever this topic is discussed on DU.

By that I mean, most of us here in DU are either Democrats or active in politics (and if gay, probably politics of a more left slant). Preaching to the choir, I guess.

However, I know plenty of non-political gays. I often wonder if Dems really did much of substance for gays, if they could get better results - draw more gays and their friends into the political process.

but instead, what gets discussed is typically something along the lines of, "Dems suck on this issue, but they're less sucky than the pukes." That's not productive.

[jackpan1260]

6. The most productive thing we can do is get as many democrats elected

as possible. Only then will we have the ability to get more done. I find it pretty interesting that so many people on DU who complain about democrats not doing enough, are the same people who threaten to withhold their votes from democrats for this or that. Democrats can't get much done when they are the minority party. If you want them to get thigs done, make them the majority party.

If I had to make list of why democrats aren't the majority party right now "because they don't do much of substance for gays" would be pretty low on my list. That's just my opinion though.

[closeupready]

8. Not complaining; it really doesn't matter what I think; rather,

My observation is that for the 67% (or whatever it is) of Americans who don't vote, arguing to them that "you don't like to participate in politics; we understand that; the GOP is bad; but WE'RE NOT AS BAD! :) " will not draw anyone to the polls. It's not effective.

What would be effective is to offer something positive to those gays and their friends who (surprise, surprise) don't bother voting or participating.

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. I can't speak for the 67 %, since I DO vote....

>>>>the GOP is bad; but WE'RE NOT AS BAD! :) " will not draw anyone to the polls. It's not effective.>>>>


but that is EXACTLY how I feel about DEMS vs. Repubs.

One has to consider this: some portion ( but frankly, probably not a particularly LARGE portion) of the 67%, is waiting for the DEM party to take the lead on LGBT issues. The rest are either anti-gay, neutral, or alienated from the political process for other reasons. And these reasons often include ignorance and stupidity.

Just trying to keep the discussion real.

[closeupready]

11. Putting cart before the horse.

The argument seems to be that once you get them into office, they'll just suddenly start supporting gay rights and use that power to help secure those rights.

That doesn't make any sense. In fact, we saw the opposite happen with Bill Clinton.

Dem leaders have a responsibility to take the lead, not those they are going to be leading. If they win despite a failure of leadership on the issue, then there's no incentive to change tunes, and it won't happen.

[Smarmie Doofus]

15. Clinton's victories in '92 and '96 resulted in ....

>>>>>The argument seems to be that once you get them into office, they'll just suddenly start supporting gay rights and use that power to help secure those rights.

That doesn't make any sense. In fact, we saw the opposite happen with Bill Clinton.>>>>>>

...the accession of Breyer and Ginsberg to the SCOTUS and many other sympathetic ( to gay rights issues) jurists to the federal judiciary. OTOH, Democratic failures to win the White House in '88, '00, and '04 resulted in Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito sitting on SCOTUS and *innumerable* homophobes populating the federal judiciary.

You are coming close... without actually saying it.... to saying that Clinton's tenure was deleterious to sexual minorities in the USA. Given the political realities and complexities... this doesn't seem fair or accurate.

[closeupready]

16. Eh, whatever. Learn from history,

or else be doomed to repeat it. eom

[Brian_Expat]

17. I'll say it

You are coming close... without actually saying it.... to saying that Clinton's tenure was deleterious to sexual minorities in the USA.

Clinton's tenure was deleterious to gays and lesbians in the USA.

After Bill Clinton left office, gays and lesbians had FEWER rights than when they entered.

Bill Clinton actively, wilfully and happily exploited anti-gay sentiment in the signing of DOMA and campaigned on that anti-gay sentiment in the 1996 elections, happily advertising his support for DOMA on right-wing radio to grow his support in social conservative circles.

Today, he and Hillary Clinton continue to endorse, defend and promote DOMA, and loudly proclaim their support for that odious law.

Yes, Virginia, gays and lesbians are worse off today, thanks to Bill Clinton. It's the truth, and there's no getting around it.

[Smarmie Doofus]

21. On what basis are you claiming this?

>>>>>After Bill Clinton left office, gays and lesbians had FEWER rights than when they entered.>>>




>>>>Bill Clinton actively, willfully and happily exploited anti-gay sentiment in the signing of DOMA and campaigned on that anti-gay sentiment in the 1996 elections, happily advertising his support for DOMA on right-wing radio to grow his support in social conservative circles.>>>>>

This is incomplete and thus misleading. DOMA was a *republican* inspired and concieved initiative. GOP strategists were crowing publicly that they had , by bringing DOMA through Congress, boxed Clinton into a position where he *had* to take a position that would hurt him politically, i.e. veto DOMA. Clinton crossed them up and signed it. Helped win him a second term, if memory serves.

Bottom line: no Clinton presidency would have made the above a moot point. Not only would there be DOMA, there would be few if any state and local anti-discrimination laws surviving a GOP-appointed federal judiciary.

And.... although I am regularly appalled at the machinations of my US Sentaor...I have not heard her 'loudly proclaiming' her support of DOMA. For one thing, she's too clever. for another, she's too cautious.

[Brian_Expat]

22. You've bought the spin

DOMA was a *republican* inspired and concieved initiative

Both Clintons supported DOMA, both Clintons continue to support DOMA, and Bill Clinton ran ads on right wing radio after signing the bill talking about his "commitment to protect traditional families." The Clintons (and a large number of "liberal" democrats including Paul Wellstone) voted for and endorsed the bill.

boxed Clinton into a position where he *had* to take a position that would hurt him politically

Which is why he also ran campaign ads supporting it, encouraged his wife to support it (as she does) in her campaign, and also encouraged John Kerry to support it?

no Clinton presidency would have made the above a moot point

For gays and lesbians, the Clinton presidency WAS a moot point.

Bill Clinton materially damaged the rights of gays and lesbians while in office. He didn't put up a fight for us once -- pretending to be backed into a corner notwithstanding. He happily signed away our rights because he agrees with the Republican agenda.

Saying that Bob Dole would have been worse isn't good enough.

[Exiled in America]

25. Thank you for bringing this up - I'm sick of clinton apologists

[BR_Parkway]

18. And that failure of leadership is exactly why they don't get into

office - everyone I know despises an ass kisser who blows whichever way for personal advancement. Every American working in a place that has more that 5 people in it experiences that type of person every single day - and they can't stand them.

Dems who want to be leaders but refuse to stand up for equal treatment of all Americans regardless of who they fall in love with will always be seen as weak and wishy washy, unable to stand up for a principle or keep Americans safe.

Geeze - look at the loyalty Shrub gets, in spite of the most obvious fuckups - because he is marketed as resolute, stay the course, taking a stand on things. I'm so sick of all the carefully parsed phrases, the undecided until a poll comes out type politicians - they aren't there to represent me, they're there to gratify their own ego/ambition and will say/use anything and anyone to get there. Puke, regardless of party.

I want someone who will stand up for all Americans, who isn't afraid to say that anything less is unAmerican and starting us on a dangerous road. Someone who does the right thing because it's right, not because the polls said the most people wanted it.

Here I sit in the land of Jesse Helms - and I actually have more respect for the man than I do alot of the current crop of pols and would be pols. I practically never agreed with him on anything - but I never had to guess where he stood on an issue, never had to wonder how he was going to carefully phrase everything so it appealed to the broadest number of voters. He actually lived by his convictions, not some focus group. I can't help but respect that.

We have the message that the majority of Americans support in every way, shape or fashion. What we lack are true leaders who are willing to go out there and say it. Well, I'm sick and tired of voting for someone because the other guy is worse. That's mediocrity and that's exactly where our country is heading. If someone wants to step up and truly represent me, I will support them in every way possible. But no more if they don't.

[xchrom]

9. what? are you following duers around?

what do you know about peoples habits away from here.

there are some extraordinarily involved people on this board.

so speak for yourself.

[sui generis]

12. Well I'm one of those who will be withholding my vote

If a candidate isn't clearly for our issues and hasn't learned to speak about them or to them, then they never will.

If our party is so fucking uptight now that they think they have to downplay us to get elected, they will keep us downplayed to stay elected.

There is a way to talk about our issues. The fact that some Democrats are so willing to dump us has nothing to do with political expediency and everything to do with being borderline bigots themselves. If you believe that all Americans should have the same rights, then you can say so with conviction and you can educate your constituency. But if you don't really believe it then you don't get my vote.

Or my money.

I am fucking SICK AND TIRED of giving my money to the democratic party and being put on the backburner out of political expediency. There is not a damn thing different for us today than there would have been under a democratic ticket in 2000 and 2004.

So why should I give money to the status quo? Why should I vote to perpetrate what's already being done to us under the republicans to be replaced by democrats? Don't take our money or our votes for granted. Period. Great social programs for married heterosexuals is not equal rights.

[MuseRider]

13. I agree.

If they are too afraid to speak out in support they are going to be too afraid to help if they are elected.

Good God, all we are talking about are equal rights for everyone. How is it possible that we are still dealing with this? Makes me want to pull out my hair.

[closeupready]

14. Hear, hear! (or is it "here, here!" LOL)

Totally agree.

I'd even be happy with something along the lines of, "yes, I understand your concerns about gays; but we can't be fair and also discriminate - that's just wrong. So no, I reject discrimination against them, and support them." And just leave it there. Or if pressed on specifics, do not be afraid to preface "don't want to get into specifics" remarks with discussion of the issue of homophobia, because we all know what that is and why it's wrong.

Grow some balls, people. Even homophobes can respect that, and understand why - even if you personally don't support gay rights - you support a faithfully Democratic constituency.

[Maven]

20. "Speaking to our issues"

Exactly. And they even have someone with a genuine Spine (TM) who provided them with a blueprint for how to LEAD on this issue. His name is Paul Hackett.

Oh, wait...

[TankLV]

19. I WILL WITHOLD MY VOTE UNLESS DEMOCRATS GIVE ME A REASONS TO VOTE FOR THEM

THIS TIME AROUND!!

Is that so hard a concept?

I will NOT accept "sit down and shut up" "you're rocking the boat" krap any longer.

I, ME I'M one of those.

Unless the current crop of leaders gets off their spineless asses and actually STANDS FOR WHAT IS RIGHT, no matter the "cost" or "win", then they can watch me stay home next time around.

It IS that simple.

And it is a choice the democrats better make quickly.

[pinto]

23. I think the political litmus test issue deserves a mention here.

I'm a Democrat. I think the party holds the best track record and the best promise for the future for all of us, over any other political party in our country today.

Do I think the party always represents my specific concerns as a gay man? - no not always.

Do I think the party is aware of those concerns? - yes, in general. And it's our job as a minority membership in the party to make our concerns an issue.

Do I think that each and every Dem candidate is aware of my concerns as a gay man? - No.

Do I think my vote is bound solely by my specific concerns as a gay man? - No.

As Yoko Ono said, "We're all in the same boat, we just have different cabins". I vote for the biggest boat available - and that's the Democratic Party.

Just my 2 cents.

[election_2004]

24. As an Independent gay voter....

My "litmus test" is basically: is a candidate willing to consider support for civil unions for same-sex couples?

If the answer is "yes," he/she may receive my vote.

If the answer is "no," he/she most definitely won't receive my vote.

[GodlessBiker]

27. I understand your position, but as another independent gay voter...

If a candidate tells me that my 19-year relationship with my partner is not as deserving to be recognized through marriage as the three straight marriages my brother has entered into, he/she will not receive my vote.

[terrya]

26. I agree. I'm particularly pissed about 1993 - 1995. For instance, ENDA

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act has been voted on in Congress several times. ENDA enjoys bi-partisan support. Before Clinton became President, the last time ENDA was voted on in the Senate it lost by one vote. One vote.

So, in 1993, the timing was perfect to finally pass and sign into law ENDA. Candidate Clinton said that he was all in favor of ENDA. The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And....nothing. This important piece of legislation could have finally been enacted into law...and...a great opportunity was completely squandered.