Gay Activists Confront Dem Senators (Hillary gets an earful)

[Maven]

An interesting followup to a recent discussion here about how the GLBT community's "return on investment" in the Democratic Party has been pretty dismal of late.

Eight Democratic senators listened to complaints last week from gay activists that they and their party colleagues have hindered progress on gay rights, according to several participants in the meeting.

The activists say that by remaining passive or by taking ambiguous and "tortured" positions on same-sex marriage and other hot-button gay issues, the senators and other Democrats are hurting the gay rights movement.

The sometimes-blunt remarks by the activists came at a March 16 meeting on Capitol Hill organized by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in her role as chair of the Senate Democrats' Steering & Outreach Committee. The meeting was closed to the media and public.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also attended, along with leaders of more than 20 prominent gay rights and AIDS organizations.

"We talked about the way appear to be largely passive, doing nothing affirmative on LGBT issues … in ways that actually are problematic for us and harmful to the work that we do," said Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, who was among the gay leaders who spoke at the meeting.

more...

[ronnykmarshall]

1. I'm glad they let them have it, Hedy.

Thanks for posting this.

[Maven]

12. 'Course, ronny.

I loved your music video by the way! :headbang: :yourock:

[ronnykmarshall]

47. Thank you!

I think I've found my newest hobby.

[SaveElmer]

2. Sounds like the earful Lincoln got from Abolitionists...

Activists aren't obliged to work within the political process. The only reason they were even able to get a meeting with these legislators is because most are sympathetic with their cause. Barney Frank once commented after Bill Clinton put in don't ask don't tell that he viewed criticism of Clinton counterproductive. Why scream at those who are trying to help instead of the ones hindering progress?

[GodlessBiker]

3. She is hindering progress by continuing to support DOMA.

I am so freakin' fed up with politicians who tell me that I should be happy with a seat in the bus at all so I shouldn't complain that I have to sit in the back.

[SaveElmer]

4. Hillary Clinton is not the enemy...

The Republican party in the grip of the fundamentalist radicals are the enemy.

[GodlessBiker]

5. She panders to what she sees as the "middle" and assumes we will follow.

I agree with Alan Van Capelle, the executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda, when he said that Clinton was “a complete disappointment,” and she is no friend with her opposition to same-sex marriage and her support for the Defense of Marriage Act.

She can try taking me for granted, but it won't work.

[SaveElmer]

6. Yes feel free to sit this one out...

I'm sure you will find more support among Republicans!

[GodlessBiker]

14. She simply doesn't care about the gay people in NY she represents.

Spitzer has come out in favor of gay marriage in his campaign for governor. So has every candidate for statewide office, save one.

She is more concerned about her own political aspirations than about us gay folk here in NY.

Are you suggesting that she is really in favor of gay marriage but is lying about it to get more votes?

[SaveElmer]

21. I am suggesting...

Her personal feelings probably do not reflect her policy positions...yes.

Eliot Spitzer won't be running for Presdident...

The fact is, if Hillary Clinton made gay marriage a strong plank in a Presidential election...she would lose...sad political fact!

BTW lets look at other great leaders in American history

FDR...how'd he do on race? Appeased southern white Democrats to get their support...interred an entire race of people based upon their appearance...yet through the New Deal FDR did more for blacks than any President since Lincoln

Teddy Roosevelt...advocated a form of passive Eugenics to keep undesirable people from polluting American stock..recognized as a progressive leader, famous for busting the power of large corporations...

Abraham Lincoln...advocated colonizing slaves to Africa, resisted repeated entreaties by Abolitionists to take a strong position on slavery, resisted any public action which would make it look like the Union was trying to abolish slavery...viewed by several generations of blacks as "Father Abraham", their liberator

[JackBeck]

16. Let the Republicans sort that out. We can't change it.

But to disagree with Clinton's pandering and centristic behavior doesn't mean I consider her an "enemy". No one in this discussion has called her an "enemy".

[closeupready]

23. That's a page from Rove's playbook, "either w/ us or with the terrorists",

and I reject that black/white argument.

[JackBeck]

24. Exactly what I was thinking when I posted.

[SaveElmer]

29. She is being treated as such...

I see more attacks on her for her positins than from the same groups on Republicans for far worse views.

[JackBeck]

33. But your original accusation was that we were calling her the enemy.

Haven't seen anyone on this thread do as much.

In what way do you see her attacked more than Republicans? Can I see some examples?

[davidinalameda]

7. some of us are damn tired of getting the shaft from our so-called leaders

and Hill is one of those so-called leaders

I didn't like her participation in the St. Patrick's Day parade last week especially after the head of the parade went off a homophobic tirade

it's guilt by association

has she called for legalization of same-sex marriages

has she called for the repeal of DADT, which her husband signed?

what has she done for the GLBT community lately?

in my view, not a damn thing

[SaveElmer]

8. There are members of the GLBT community who disagree with you...

But Danny O'Donnell, an openly gay state assemblyman and brother of entertainer Rosie O'Donnell, said it came down to a choice between practicality and "a purist, litmus test" approach to politics.

O'Donnell and his partner, John Banta, are one of several couples who have sued New York State for the right to marry. The state's top court is expected to resolve the matter later this year.

"Does she take the position on gay marriage that I would like her to take? No, but she's better than most," O'Donnell said. "When gay marriage comes, and it's coming _ the ball is rolling down the hill _ I'm sure she'll accept it."

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--clinton-gayfundra0310mar10,0,7821934.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

[Maven]

9. Exactly

When the ball is rolling down the hill, she'll accept it. Well of course...she wouldn't want to get rolled over.

Sorry, Hillary is not a leader on this issue and will not be remembered as such. She's fully prepared to throw us under the bus just like anyone on the right. If prominent Democrats are going to support discrimination, as many clearly do, then just come out and say it: "I support discrimination just like any Republican."

I posted this article mainly because it adds a good point to the ongoing discussion here, namely, that not only do borderline Dems not help us on this issue, they actually hurt us by making stronger politicians who do support full civil rights look more "fringe."

[SaveElmer]

10. I repeat...Hillary is not the enemy...

She has gone futher than most politicians, and much further obviously than you are going to get from RW Republicans. Unfortunately, politicians have not only to do what's right, they have to do what's possible. There of course can be debate over what is possible, but the fact is the country is not yet ready for gay marriage...it's getting there, but not there yet. Assuming Hillary is running for President, making gay marriage a feature of her platform would be asking her to slit her throat politically. Sad but true!

[Maven]

11. What aren't you getting about the word "leader"

This is why people buy the untruth that Democrats don't stand for anything. Exactly for this reason. This country has never been "ready" for progress without real leaders to give them the CONFIDENCE to do what is right. FDR didn't change history by waiting until people were "ready." He just fucking did what needed to be done. And even at that, half of his reforms were undone by conservatives on the courts.

The hard truth is that on an issue like this, most people know in their GUT how they feel about it--this is an all-or-nothing proposition. That's why nobody buys these "tortured" (in the words of the article) positions, and why they will never win Dems anything but resentment and ridicule. Either stand for something, and do it boldly, or step aside.

And how has she gone "farther than most?" What has she done except to take every opportunity to "clarify" her position against us?

[JackBeck]

13. I agree with Harvey. It's all about leadership.

I'm sick and tired of having our elected employees not listening to their bosses.

Feingold came out and supported gay marriage. Why can't Clinton? Because she's a centrist do-nothing who cautiously watches what she says when she could be showing some leadership, out side of leading the DLC. Remember, this is the party who blamed our community for Kerry losing the election.

That being said, I will not be voting for her during the primary.

[SaveElmer]

15. Ahh...the traditional Pollyanna view of FDR...

The man who interred an entire race of people for no reason other than their ethnicity. Was he racist, or simply doing what was politicall expedient?

The man who turned a blind eye to racism to appease southern white Democrats...was he racist, or simply doing what was politically expedient

FDR was a MASTER of doing what was POSSIBLE...as was Abraham Lincoln

Abolitionists were all over him from day one...he did what he could when he could. Leadership mens getting things done...which cannot be done without power.

Its all well and good to come out strong on an issue, but if doing so keeps you from power it avails you nothing. The fact of the matter is, more than half the people in this country are against gay marriage. If she runs, she is not running to be President of the Democrats, if she were the decision would be easy...and the cold, hard, political fact is, if strong advocacy of gay marriage were in her platform she would lose...

[Maven]

17. Well, don't worry

I'm sure if and when she does lose, we'll all know which group to blame.

[SaveElmer]

18. The media...nt

[JackBeck]

19. Are you serious? Sounds a bit like the most recent Repug talking point.

Blame the media!

[SaveElmer]

22. Nope I'm not serious...

Aping the Republican idiots...

[Maven]

25. Funny you should speak of "aping Republicans" nt

[SaveElmer]

26. Only absolutists....

WOuld equate Hillary's positions on Gay Issues with those of the Republican majority...

[davidinalameda]

27. what a ringing endorsement

better than most

[SaveElmer]

28. When half the country opposes what you advocate...

Leaders who have to take a less than perfect position are what you are going to get...

Better Clinton than Frist

[JackBeck]

30. Civil rights legislation passed when more than half the country opposed.

Better Feingold than Clinton or Frist.

[SaveElmer]

32. I would be perfectly happy with Feingold...

But he will not win

[davidinalameda]

31. and that half is wrong

and that half is going to continue to be wrong if our so-called leaders don't take the right stance

she and the other could easily say that marriage should be for all but she hasn't

she has taken the position that marriage should only be between a man and a woman

she is saying that gays and lesbians are second class citizens

so tell me why I should support her or any other politician that says that

[SaveElmer]

34. Yes they are wrong...

But they vote...

Do you really believe that if our nominee, whoever it is, takes a strong pro-gray marriage stand in 2008 will win?

Let me ask you this...would you have voted for FDR in 1932 if you were black? Would you have voted for Lincoln in 1860 if you were an abolitionist?

[JackBeck]

35. I'd like to see how many progressive/liberal voters are actually out there

We've been TOLD who votes, and what we know is that most people DON'T vote. Since more Democrats are registered voters than Republicans, we need a strong voice rather than a poll-driven centrist candidate.

[SaveElmer]

37. I think the fact that half of the voters in this country...

Would vote to put shrub back in office in the face of the overwhelming evidence of his incompetence is pretty good evidence of who is out there voting. And the polls I have seen show a significant chunk of Democrats still oppose gay marriage...

And before I go on, I do want to make clear I am for gay marriage...always have been. My sister is gay, and I've talked to her about this quite a bit, and she largely agrees with me that a strong gay marriage plank will not fly in the general election. I am also a monthly contributor to HRC.

I am also a history student (literally), and know that there are very few instances in American History were a major shift in social policy was achieved by a strong public advocate of that policy. We never saw an abolitionist president for example. Lyndon Johnson may be the exception, but he spent 30 years in politics polishing his good old boy bona fides first.

[JackBeck]

40. This might be where we disagree the most.

I don't think that half of this country voted for Bush.

But we can talk about this at a different time and place...

:pals:

[SaveElmer]

43. Well close enough to half...

To still be incredible to me... :-)

[closeupready]

36. Yes, I believe a candidate taking a strong pro-gay marriage stance can win

There. I said it. I believe it, too. When dems stop pandering to the homophobes out there (both without and within the Dem Party), people will respect them for that, even if they disagree with that stance.

[SaveElmer]

38. I sincerely hope you are right...

I strongly support gay marriage.

But history tells me you are wrong.

Could Abraham Lincoln have won on an abolitionist plank ?

Could FDR have won on a Civil Rights plank ?

[davidinalameda]

39. I don't know who I would have voted for

and I certainly don't know if our nominee would lose or not

if our nominee takes principled stands on issues, I think they'll win

people are tired of politicians who don't lead and there are plenty of other candidates out there that are leaders

Hill ain't one of them

[SaveElmer]

41. Name the last Presidential candidate...

To take a strong advocacy position on a social issue that won...

Historically they are few and far between...LBJ is the possible exception, and he did not take a position until 30 years into his political career.

[JackBeck]

42. George W. Bush promised to ban same-sex marriage during his campaign

[SaveElmer]

44. Well it's backfired...

I think there are more gay marriages in the US now than there were when he came in! Not alot, but some...

I have no doubt the day is coming...but I don't see that it has yet been accepted by enough people to risk making it a strong plank in our platform in 2008.

[closeupready]

20. Did they reply by laughing and saying, "Where are you going to go? Ha, ha"

as some here like to do?

[sui generis]

45. they still think of us as children

they have to lump gay and AIDS issues together to speak to either. How pathetic, how diminishing of both independent issues.

They want to allow us state rights, but not federal rights, while taking our federal tax dollars.

They think that maybe equal marriage is not REALLY as important to us as some of us loudmouths keep telling them. They're deluded.

They are going to lose without our vote. It is the height of hubris to think that likely voters are going to vote for a democrat just because they're not a republican, all other issues being equal.

They had better wake up and smell the coffee.

[Maven]

46. On "lumping"

Couldn't agree more.

A) Does injustice to both issues
B) Allows more weaseling (i.e., makes their attention to gay issues seem more "health-related")

[kweerwolf]

48. It's refreshing to see Hillary (and other DINOs) get called on their B.S.

Watching folks like Hillary pander to the lowest common denominator on issues like gay rights and abortion is disgusting and shows just how low some of the leaders of the Democratic Party have stooped.

Democrats used to be a party of passion and conviction under leaders like JFK, Eugene McCarthy and the like. Now, under the Clintons, it's become the party of expediency where it doesn't matter what constituency you sell out as long as you can pick up more votes than you lost.

Now we get opportunists like Hillary cozying up to the anti-choice crowd, joining with Sen. Sam Brownshirt ... oops! I mean "Brownback" ... to cluck about video games and distancing herself from gay issues. She's a disgrace. And if the Democratic Party puts her at the head of its ticket in 2008, then it's a disgrace, too.

Too bad Hillary apparently never read any of Truman's writings. He said: "Voters are very smart. Give them a choice between a real Republican and a phony one and they'll vote for the real one every time."

[keithkam]

49. This could all be avoided if

Democrats didn't trap themselves by dealing with whether or not they approve of gay marriage. They should treat it as a Constitutional issue, that all Americans are equal and that their personal views on the matter should have no bearing on who the Constitution applies to since it applies to all citizens.