No More Left Turns

  There are good relationships, and there are bad relationships. When the gay rights movement downed too many partisan cocktails and slid into bed with the first political party who made goo-goo eyes, the best response would have been to crawl away in the misty pre-dawn hours and hope nobody spotted them.

We gay folk are an orientation of means. Why commit when there is great, wide world of ideologies out there just waiting for us to flirt with them? That Libertarian hottie has been sending drinks our way all night, and we're going to stick close to our tired, frumpy, played-out Liberal beau?

Tch, and we call ourselves self-respecting homosexuals. For shame.

When "non-partisan" GLBT rights groups started going steady with the Left, everyone could see it was a bad relationship from the start. While GLBTers rush to support abortion and dabble in anti-war activities, the Left has given us DOMA and a Democratic presidential candidate who attempted to repeal gay marriage in his home state.

No matter how many times this ideological Ike Turner has bitch-slapped gay rights activists, we have played the Tina and stuck with him, hoping one day he'll change, and he really does love us, and he just bought us a shiny new civil union in an inconsequential New England state to prove he cares.

Girl, it's time to head to the Ramada. Ike won't ever be putting marriage on his national platform. It's time to stick up for ourselves. If the Democratic Party thought it'd win them a presidential race, they'd show up to our dressing room with a gun and a crack addiction.

With all this in mind, I came across this little bit of GLBT foolishness:

National gay and lesbian groups are responding with marketing campaigns and old-fashioned schmoozing to win over minority gays, many of whom argue white activists want their votes on gay marriage and other national issues, but rarely include poverty, racism and other minority concerns on their agendas.

New rule: "Bipartisan" GLBT groups only get to have one agenda from now on - actual GLBT rights. No more liberal crap. I'd say no more conservative crap either, but we know that has never been a particular concern.

Identity politics are a bottomless business. It's a series of Russian dolls, peeling away identity after identity, only to find yet another identity underneath. Why be gay and lesbian when you can be the Norweigian Lesbian Hermaphrodite Pagans for Equality in Woman's Golf? Then, when the HRC doesn't show up at your rally, you can complain about how marginalized you are, without a trace of self-awareness that it is perhaps you that is marginalizing yourself.

Non-partisan GLBT rights groups are not supposed to be the one-stop shop for all your liberal grievance needs.

Finally, we get this little nugget:

"If I don't have the money I need to have food in my refrigerator or to get on a bus to get to work, the whole issue of the right to marry, that's secondary," Perez said. "The lives of the folks on 'Will and Grace' are not necessarily reflective of the lives of gay Latinos."

Honey, no gay man's life is like Will and Grace. It's why we all stopped watching the show. Well, that and the same episode reinterpreted through fifty different scripts began to feel a little like the latest Unspeakable Joy remix - there's only so much ecstacy in the world that can make it tolerable.

Comments

[Essem]

I am shocked. Shocked and appalled. Naomi Perez just continued the scandalous and sexist invisibilizationalizing..ness, of women in the Hispanic community, talking about "gay Latinos".
What happened to "gay Latino/as"?! She is a traitoress to her comunidad.

One of the reasons this gay white male (thank you, thank you, hold your applause) was GLAAD to flee the purgatory of LGBTSQRTZ activism is that I was tired of us GWMs being the available whipping boys for the frustrations, real and often very imaginary, of POC activists and activistas, none of whose tantrums or neuroses or limitless licenses for paranoid whining could ever be criticized. "Here, let's be allies in an inclusive movement so I can shit on you whenever I feel like it and you have to thank me for raising your consciousness and give me money." Forget it. Just the white males alone were wacko enough.

[Essem]

PS. Happy Columbus Day!

[Paul, Houston TX]

Robby -

I do not identify as either Republican nor a Democrat (anymore) and only recently began identifying as a Libertarian versus simply an Independent. But no matter what state, district, county and/or city that I reside -- we've (and this hasn't always been the case throughout our history) allowed the political spectrum to be divided into two camps (D's and R's).

I have voted my heart and have selected Libertarian candidates at the ballot box -- only to end up seeing my vote no better than wasted in the overall election and even worse seeing NeoCon candidates who espouse views, beliefs and doctrines that are so completely anti-gay that I find myself ... like Tina, in your analogy - supporting D candidates ... because to do otherwise would mean that I support candidates that are actively and viciously anti-gay versus merely being passively so.

I am all for the ideal of removing the all powerful hold that the D and R parties have on American politics, and from where I sit one is no better than the other anymore. I firmly believe, we the people, have the power to make this change ... I just do not see the will to do it.

Its sounds good. But what's it going to take ... to make it so.

[Robbie]

Essem - You crack me up =) And, heyyy, no celebrating the genocidal tyrant. Today's, uh *checks PC calendar* Italian-American Pride Day. Which means someone, somewhere, as we speak, is bitching about the Sopranos.

Paul - I think we can do a great deal by withholding support from gay rights organizations that are little more than shills for a political party. That isn't like the Stonewall Democrats or Log Cabin Republicans. They are partisan by design, and I'm fine with that.

What I hate is seeing these "non-partisan" national organizations constantly carrying water for every partisan, Lefty cause under the sun. I want them to be concerned with gay rights and only gay rights. I want them to withhhold support from candidates from both sides who will not support gay marriage. I do not want to see them donating to Democratic candidates who voted for the FMA. I do not want to see them at anti-war rallies or abortion functions. They are not a beholden wing of the Democratic party. They are supposed to be working for us - all of us.

They should be making politicians work for our votes. We are an affluent, voting minority with a lot of disproportionate power given our numbers. We should be using that to our best advantage and playing hard to get.

[Tommy]

Robbie
As a liberal/socialist (I wish this country had a Labor Party!) I almost never agree with your blog post. However, I enjoy your wit and like the perspective you bring to the conversation over GLBT rights. I, and the rest of my gay liberal friends, look at our rights through the prism of universal human rights. The same individuals and parties, who would deny a woman the right to control her own body, are the very ones who would deny us the right to marry the person we love. Every political party is a coalition of special interest. From these disparate parts you get an imperfect whole. I have made a pragmatic decision to throw my lot in with the Democratic Party because it is made up of the "special interest groups" that call on the government to fulfill its promise/obligation to ALL of its citizens. To suggest, even in jest, that the party’s relationship with its gay and lesbian members is somehow analogous to Ike and Tina Turners relationship is highly offensive to me. Instead I prefer to look at it like a well-worn marriage. At 29 the "goo-goo eyes" stage is well over. What remains is a commitment to a party, despite all its faults, that still calls out to the best in me.

[Robbie]

I understand what you're saying, Tommy, but you have to look at it from my point of view as a centrist.

Certain groups exist solely for the purpose of advancing GLBT rights. That is it. They call themselves non-partisan or bipartisan and are supposed to support candidates who will vote for gay marriage, no matter what party they belong to.

The Tina Turner comparison is apt thanks to the 2004. You had John Kerry advocating the repealing of gay marriage in Massachusettes via a state amendment. Not merely opposing gay marriage, but actually rolling back advances that had already been made. And yet, all these "non-partisan" GLBT organizations rushed to endorse him and raise cash on his behalf.

He could smack the gay activist community around as much as he pleased, and they took it and worked even harder to please him. It was a really pathetic display. These organizations have done this with other politicians who are less than gay-supportive.

That's egregious enough, but then you have various "non-partisan" groups advocating for abortion rights or anti-war causes, it's time to wonder if these are really effective spokespeople for gay rights.

Republicans and Bush earned roughly a quarter of the gay vote in 2000 and 2004. It seems to me "non-partisan" organizations whose sole interest is the advancement of gay rights wouldn't work to alienate those people by signing onto every liberal and Democratic cause under the sun.

Every time I contemplate donating time or money to one of these groups, I remember all the partisan shilling they've done that hasn't advanced gay rights, and I put the check back in my desk.

They really need to cut it out and remember they're representatives of the entire gay community, not merely the Democratic Party.

[Tommy]

Robbie-
I would submit to you that Kerry (who is too conservative for my taste "-)) wouldn't have taken a negative position, or any position for that matter, on gay marriage if he had not been forced to do so by Republicans who were once again using gay rights as a wedge issue. Further, I would submit to you that Kerry made the right decision.
As noted in my previous comment I am a pragmatist (I understand the difference b/w the way I would like things to be and the political reality) at heart. As I see it the application of the term non-partisan to advocacy groups is problematic at best. Advocacy groups, whether they are for abortion rights or gay rights, are by their very nature partisan. They are for something or against something. In a two party system it should come as no surprise that such groups are more or less allied with one of the parties.
Gay rights groups should, and do, support Republicans who are sympathetic to our goals. However, they must also operate as part of a larger civil rights movement. It is not apparent that labor groups, pro-choice groups, or environmental groups have complimentary groups within the Republican party that would support our issues should we stop allying ourselves with these core components of the Democratic Party. Yes Republicans "earned" 25% of the GLBT vote in the most recent election. What about the 75%(an impressive margin in political terms when one realizes how close some of the margins were among other demographics) who voted for Kerry and other Democrats? Should they let a minority within a minority dictate the agenda of their "non-partisan" groups?

[North Dallas Thirty]

I would submit to you that Kerry (who is too conservative for my taste "-)) wouldn't have taken a negative position, or any position for that matter, on gay marriage if he had not been forced to do so by Republicans who were once again using gay rights as a wedge issue.

God forbid the man actually have to stand for something.

The Republicans "forced" Kerry to do nothing, Tommy. Kerry chose to be antigay and to push permanently stripping gays of rights in order to win an election. Had he made it to office, it would have been Clinton II -- promise much, deliver the opposite, and treat us to another series of sniveling appearances by Elizabeth Birch/Joe Solmonese/Hilary Rosen/name your paid Democratic lobbyist in which legally depriving gays of rights and advertising the fact was excused by attendance at an HRC dinner.

It is not apparent that labor groups, pro-choice groups, or environmental groups have complimentary groups within the Republican party that would support our issues should we stop allying ourselves with these core components of the Democratic Party.

Thank you, but I think we can live without, especially when that same excuse is used to equivocate for these same groups giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to candidates who support the FMA.

Furthermore, we really need to ask ourselves whether these alliances put us in a good position. In Texas, minors are required to have parental consent to get a Tylenol from the school nurse or to get their ears pierced; arguing that the same rules should not apply to an outpatient surgical procedure like abortion makes no sense to the vast majority of Texans, but is, as I've blogged before, invariably turned into a "gay issue" because of these idiotic alliances.

I love Robbie's analogy in this post because that IS the gay community. We're one of two things -- either convinced we're not good enough to succeed on our own, or hopelessly addicted to the drugs we're given. The Democratic Party knows this and constantly plays to the fact -- Republicans all hate you, if it wasn't for us you'd have nothing -- and they pay pimps like Joe Solmonese, etc., who can't live without the "drugs", to continually feed us that line of garbage.

Personally, I think gay rights are more than capable of standing on their own. However, it's going to take a purge of people who have used gay rights as an excuse to push every lunatic cause under the sun.

[Tommy]

North Dallas-
1. I didn't say that Kerry made a principled decision. I said he made the right decision in light of the circumstances. Another attack on Kerry does not refute the fact that it was the Republican Party/George Bush and their religious base that made the FMA an issue in 2004. Surely you recognize the difference b/w actively opposing gay equality and making a tough decision when faced with an electorate opposed to gay marriage. I don't think I am going to far out on a limb when I say that most of the individuals and organizations actively opposing gay equality are affiliated with the Republican Party.
2. As for Clinton, I would point out that DOMA was not a priority of the President or his base. Again it was little more than a Republican attempt to make the President look bad. As I sit here and type this response the Republican Party controls the White House and The Congress. Surely they recognize the vast majority of Americans support measures that would provide the GLBT community job and and housing protection. Why no action on these bills?
3. You say we can live without the support of the groups I mentioned. How? I challenge you to name 3 groups, with comparable numbers, within the Republican Party that would supplant the support we get from the groups I mentioned. Furthermore, one link to an article about Emily's List giving money to FMA supporters doesn't prove your implicit contention that somehow our allies within the Democratic Party stab us in the back the first chance they get. If they have to occasionally make hard decisions on who they will support that is the reality of American Politics. Name one race in 2004 where such groups supported a Democrat over a Republican who was opposed to the FMA
4. As for Texas. Are you implying that if gay advocacy groups stopped supporting their abortion rights allies the good people of Texas would wake up and support gay equality? I would call that wishful thinking bordering on the delusional.
5. Implying that the majority of gay people vote for Democrats because we somehow don't think we're good enough, or because we're on drugs, isn't an argument. It's offensive conjecture. If only we were smart enough to know what's best for us!
6. Finally, You conveniently ignore the last part of my comment. The reality is that you are a minority within a minority. So instead of talking about "purging", and engaging in other hyperbolic attacks, you might spend some time engaging the liberals you so obviously despise.

[North Dallas Thirty]

I didn't say that Kerry made a principled decision. I said he made the right decision in light of the circumstances.

Excuse me.....since when is pushing laws to strip gays of rights permanently EVER "the right decision"?

The "right decision" in this case was to support gay marriage. The weenie decision would have been to take no position on it, and the antigay bigot decision would be to move to ban it.

I called the last what it was. The gay left, including the so-called "gay rights" groups, called it "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive". You apparently fall into the latter group, given your statements above about how awful denying gays the right to marry the person they love was, but calling it here "the right decision".

Now, you ask several questions that can be answered by the same answer; if gay rights were not inextricably bound up, wrongly, with unrelated and far less publicly-supported activities, we would not need the support of other groups -- after all, you claim a majority of people support gay rights. However, because we insist on bundling gay rights with liberal causes like defending pedophiles(the ACLU), pushing abortion and blocking of parental notification (the pro-abortion groups like EMILY'S List and Planned Parenthood), and preventing school districts from firing incompetent teachers (unions), we associate the passage of gay rights with several other things of which the public wants no part. Put bluntly, our rights by themselves are more supported by the public than our rights plus these groups whose support we "need".

In short, you will be amazed at the progress that can be made in regards to gay rights when we start doing two things: one, call bigots bigots, regardless of party affiliation, and two, tell the leftist groups it's time they quit using us to add a veneer of respectability to their lunatic agendas.

[Tommy]

North Dallas-
Maybe I set the bar to high. Name two groups. Again I would remind you that smearing our allies (the pedophilia/ACLU link is right up there with some of the best work done by Focus on the Family) is not an argument. The last time I checked the Employment Non-Discrimination Act wasn't called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act/Kill fetuses while you're petting spotted owls Act. It stands alone. The Republican Congress (whose leadership is more conservative than the average American) simply needs to pass it so that the President can sign it. Will this happen? Probably not.
Over 70% of the public believe that abortion should be legal in all or some cases (the majority believing in some cases). A majority of the public believes that Roe shouldn't be overturned. By and large the public supports more stringent environmental regulations. Once again these are FACTS borne out by polls taken continuously over the past two decades. I would argue that we have made a wise strategic decision by allying ourselves with these groups.
We have truly reached a milestone in this country when "leftist" use us to add "a veneer of respectability to their lunatic agendas". Texan # 1: I hear the gays are opposed to drilling in ANWAR. Texan # 2: Dab blame it I knew that was a bad idea.
The point is that Democrats/The Democratic Party is GENERALLY more supportive of our rights. It's striking that your response to my criticisms of the Republican Party is an attack on the liberal groups who have no control over the Party's agenda. Sir I think it is you who have drank the poison Kool- Aid. As for me I will continue to support Republicans and Democrats who support our equality (As HRC does). The one thing I refuse to do is have a litmus test. If John Kerry or John McCain have to occasional parse their words on gay marriage then so be it. I'll take them over Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback any day.

[The Malcontent]

All of these casual slurs of the fine people at Kool-Aid ... :-)

[Tommy]

Flavor Aid®. " I stand chastened and rebuked" :-)

[North Dallas Thirty]

Again I would remind you that smearing our allies (the pedophilia/ACLU link is right up there with some of the best work done by Focus on the Family) is not an argument.

Interesting.... telling the truth is now "smearing". Or were you unaware of the fact that our dear "friends" the ACLU were defending organizations of gay pedophiles?

I think a group that claims to be our ally would have the sense not to argue that a group who says that their being gay entitles them to post websites and push literature that tells people how to lure in, molest, and get away with molesting children should be allowed to do so. That's more consistent with a group that is shamelessly exploiting us because it knows we won't fight back.

As for the level of support you receive, you want me to find three groups that link us to pedophilia (as does the ACLU) and support the FMA, as do pro-abortion groups like EMILY'S List? Easy.

Over 70% of the public believe that abortion should be legal in all or some cases (the majority believing in some cases). A majority of the public believes that Roe shouldn't be overturned. By and large the public supports more stringent environmental regulations. Once again these are FACTS borne out by polls taken continuously over the past two decades. I would argue that we have made a wise strategic decision by allying ourselves with these groups.

Tommy, have you actually read the position papers of your allies?

Planned Parenthood, for one, believes that abortion should be not only allowed, but encouraged, in ALL situations, with NO restrictions whatsoever, including if the woman is a minor. That view, by your own admittance, is against that of the majority of Americans.

"Supporting more-stringent environmental restrictions" is substantially different than the position of environmentalist groups, who want to impose restrictions of such lunatic severity that they would punish business and would deprive hundreds of thousands of people of jobs. Do you think a majority of Americans support environmental restrictions that would cost them their livelihoods, as the leftist environmental groups demand?

I can further detail this by showing a poll I previously posted, showing that 43% of DEMOCRATIC voters support restricting abortion only to cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. If it is true, as you claim, that the liberal special-interest groups have "no control", why do the delegates to the Democratic Convention, who ultimately select candidates and party platform, mirror the views of the special interest groups (i.e. promoting unrestricted abortion at any age and for any circumstance) and not of the voters?

Again, Tommy, you put yourself against gay rights by linking them with things that the majority of the population opposes, and insisting that gays would be helpless if we didn't do the bidding of unpopular liberal special-interest groups. Voters aren't stupid; they know that Planned Parenthood promotes unrestricted abortion, blocking parental notification, and teenage sex and that the ACLU defends as "free speech" websites and literature that encourage and tell gay sickos how to capture and molest little boys without getting caught. Just because you don't want to acknowledge their agendas doesn't mean they fail to exist.

The last time I checked the Employment Non-Discrimination Act wasn't called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act/Kill fetuses while you're petting spotted owls Act.

And the last time I went to the supermarket, they were still saying that Captain Crunch was an essential part of a balanced breakfast. Titles mean nothing; amendments and lard in the body of a bill mean everything.

As for me I will continue to support Republicans and Democrats who support our equality (As HRC does). The one thing I refuse to do is have a litmus test. If John Kerry or John McCain have to occasional parse their words on gay marriage then so be it.

Let me say this very clearly, Tommy..... both John Kerry and John McCain support denying gays rights by state constitutional amendment. That is not by ANY stretch of the imagination supporting "equality"; it is supporting blatant, bigoted INEQUALITY.

My favorite example of HRC's ineptness, stupidity, and mendacity comes from Missouri. I quote:

HRC was heavily involved in the recent ballot fight in Missouri, where voters approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage 71 to 29 percent on Aug. 3. The national organization sent field workers and $100,000 to assist the Constitution Defense League, which was leading opposition to the amendment.

Of course, that $100k is probably just a little under what they spent on the post-nomination party, and a drop in the bucket compared to their multimillion dollar publicity and advertising blitzes, for this man:

One day after Missourians overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry made a campaign swing through the state and lauded voters for approving the measure.

As this example clearly shows, they give a hundred thousand dollars to block an antigay amendment (promote equality) and millions of dollars to promote INequality.

The problem is, though, that had they stood up for gay rights and pushed money into defeating the amendment, rather than promoting the Democrat, the DNC would have quit returning their phone calls and the money spigot for the DNC lobbyists who make up their executive board would have shut off immediately.

I don't mind at all working with Democrats or liberal groups, Tommy. But what you figure out very quickly is that their interest in gay rights rapidly wanes when a) it causes them inconvenience or b) you refuse to let them associate gay rights with unrelated subjects.

[Tommy]

North Dallas-
Do the terms Straw Man or Red Herring have any resonance with you?

[North Dallas Thirty]

Let's see....oh yes, that's usually what it's called when I point out that the positions of the liberal groups that gays "must support", supposedly in order for gay rights to get any traction whatsoever are opposed by more people than gay rights themselves are.

It's also quite often bandied about when I point out that HRC, among others, blew more money on antigay politicians than it spent on gay activism in the 2004 election cycle.

Either way, it's the rough equivalent of yelling, "Yeah, but you're a booger-head!", at a public debate.

[Tommy]

ummmm..... or it could be because you take the most extreme position of each liberal group and bandy it about as if it were the defining issue of each group. This is a classic distraction for those who can't win an argument on the merits. I concede the point that Democrats,The Democratic Party, and our leftist allies don't always take positions or vote the way we would like them to. You're beating a dead horse. For the sake of argument I will further concede the need to forgo alliances with such groups. Without taking a pot shot at these groups, and keeping in mind that we operate within a two party framework that requires compromise and consensus, would you please lay out a reasoned argument, giving concrete examples, of how the Republican Party( let's define the Party based on its National Platform) and its affiliated groups are any better. Did any of the supposedly anti-gay candidates HRC gave money to in 2004 have Republican opponents who were more supportive of gay equality? Did or did not the majority of support for FMA come from Republicans? Are you being glib about ENDA because it stands as a glaring reminder of gay conservatives impotence within the Republican Party? In order to convince us( the 75 % of gays who are liberal) you've got to do batter than attack our friends. How about explaining why we should support your friends.

[Tommy]

Should be the need to form such alliances- not forgo :-)

[Robbie]

*watches debate*

I'm so enjoying this.

I meant to participate, but work has been madness. Hopefully I can jump in later tonight.

You know, when it'll basically be over =)

[North Dallas Thirty]

I concede the point that Democrats,The Democratic Party, and our leftist allies don't always take positions or vote the way we would like them to.

And I will concede the point that Republicans, the Republican Party, and conservative allies don't always take positions or vote in the way that we would like.

For the sake of argument I will further concede the need to forgo alliances with such groups.

I will also concede the need to forgo entangling alliances with such groups that take positions that are counterproductive to gay rights.

Without taking a pot shot at these groups, and keeping in mind that we operate within a two party framework that requires compromise and consensus, would you please lay out a reasoned argument, giving concrete examples, of how the Republican Party( let's define the Party based on its National Platform) and its affiliated groups are any better.

I'm not interested in proving which party is better, Tommy. My interest is in proving that whoever can support gay rights without strings attached is the best option for us, and if no one can, then we strike out on our own.

This is the problem I see here:

Did any of the supposedly anti-gay candidates HRC gave money to in 2004 have Republican opponents who were more supportive of gay equality?

A rule of thumb: there is no such thing as "more" or "less supportive". You either do, or you don't. You either meet HRC's profile, or you don't. In a world of finite resources in which we are a definite minority group, we need to focus our money and time squarely on pure support, not half-assed attempts.

The reason is very simple, Tommy....when groups like HRC, which supposedly stand for gay equality, support politicians who don't, the bar for gay equality is lowered. Right now, you can be "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive" and push state constitutional amendments that explicitly strip gays of rights and confine them to second-class citizenship.

What HRC, among others, could and should have done in Missouri and Massachusetts was to simply state that Kerry was free to support antigay state constitutional amendments; however, his doing so rendered his stances antigay and incompatible with gay equality, and the money and time that would have been spent on him was instead going to be spent on influencing the voters to repel such amendments. It's exactly the same position that Log Cabin took.

Now, be honest, Tommy. How many of your "friends" would have stuck with you at that point? If they would not have, given that this was something vital to you and your existence, are they really your friends?

And just as an additional point:

Are you being glib about ENDA because it stands as a glaring reminder of gay conservatives impotence within the Republican Party?

I would say that it is less a reminder of impotence than it is of diversity of opinion. It goes against the libertarian grain of many conservatives to place restrictions on business's ability to hire and fire, even though we would to some degree benefit from it. As I told people when we were working on the Dallas and Fort Worth nondiscrimination ordinances, getting them passed was only the beginning -- making them unnecessary was the ultimate goal.

With or without ENDA, most American businesses have figured out that discrimination against differing sexual orientations is both counterproductive and unnecessary, and have adjusted their policies accordingly. Given that, I feel no pressing need to push ENDA, nor do I put much stock in the gay-supportiveness of those who use their support of it as a form of immunity against prosecution for their support of antigay state and Federal amendments. The market has once again done an excellent job of solving the issue.

[Tommy]

North Dallas-
Nice try. In the real world( U.S.A. 2005) you have two teams. Even if you accept that we account for 10% of the population( some estimates go as low as 2%) we simply don't have the numbers to strike out on our own. Others can judge for themselves, but I will count your evasion/lack of a coherent defense as a victory for me. Bye the Bye if Clinton is held morally responsible for signing DOMA, then surely the Congress and the President should be held accountable for not passing and signing ENDA. Does our progress with private companies negate the need for them to do the right thing?

[Tommy]

fingers faster than the brain tonight "-)- should be by the bye :-)

[North Dallas Thirty]

In the real world( U.S.A. 2005) you have two teams. Even if you accept that we account for 10% of the population( some estimates go as low as 2%) we simply don't have the numbers to strike out on our own.

Do we not?

There are two teams, true, but they are almost equal in numbers. In a situation like this, every vote counts -- which amplifies immeasurably the power and capability of an organized minority.

George Bush won the past election by approximately 3 million votes. That, according to most counts, is approximately three-quarters of the number of glbts who voted, 4 million in all.

What I find interesting is that that's the same amount as the widely-quoted "missing evangelicals" vote -- the one for which the Democrats and the Republicans supported changing fundamental law to strip and deprive gays of rights for religious and "traditional" reasons.

Now, Tommy, the question you ought to ask yourself.....why will they do that for them, but not for you? After all, we have the same number of votes -- why would the Democrats lie so blatantly by claiming to support "full inclusion" and "equality", but doing the exact opposite, just to appease these voters?

The answer: ecause both the Republicans and Democrats know that these voters a) stick up for what they believe and b) will vote (or not vote) based on actions and not party affiliation.

In contrast, Bill Clinton proved, and John Kerry confirmed, that no matter what a Democrat does, the gay left will call it ; meanwhile, as Arnold Schwarzenegger shows, even a Republican with a similar or better position will be called antigay and evil.

As a result, neither side cares or considers what we will think of or how we will respond to their actions -- because they know the end result will always be the same.

Simply put, Tommy, John Kerry knows he can take gay rights away and gays will thank him with words and checkbooks for doing it. Conversely, George Bush knows he could support civil unions and gays would cuss him out as an antigay bastard. Like Pavlov's dogs, it's a conditioned response that has nothing to do with the actual situation.

Now, if we could prove that we voted on something other than party affiliation, we would have a splendid chance of shaping agendas and getting our way, given that our vote would be the margin that each side needs to win. However, that would require undoing years of conditioning to think of ourselves as ineffectual and ugly creatures that only a Democrat could love, hastened along by paid shills like Joe Solmonese and Hilary Rosen. Not a huge risk on either side.

[Tommy]

North Dallas-
As I said in my first comment, I look at our rights through the prism of universal human rights. My view of social justice requires me to support abortion rights, labor unions, and environmental groups. I have no interest in advancing my rights at the expense of others. As for Bush and his aprox. 3 million margin, I would respond as follows. 1. In this country the popular vote doesn’t determine Presidential Elections- ask Al Gore- It’s the Electoral College that matters. If not for Ohio/Florida Bush would be back in Crawford clearing brush. 2. The 4 million GLBT votes are probably (I admit this is a best guess) concentrated in urban areas around the country. 3. This concentration in urban areas dilutes (in 2004 over 60% of the nations counties gave super majorities to Kerry or Bush) the impact of the GLBT vote on the national level, making the kind of voting en masse that you would like to see less effective. 4. As the country continues to “sort out” self -defined evangelical voters are increasingly loyal to the Republican Party and their votes are not up for grabs as you suggest. 5. Finally, I would dispute your contention that somehow those of us who vote for Democrats are “conditioned” to do so, or are somehow spoiled children, as Robbie would describe us. To me such depictions are no better than liberals who describe Gay Republicans as self-hating. We just have different worldviews.

[North Dallas Thirty]

As I said in my first comment, I look at our rights through the prism of universal human rights. My view of social justice requires me to support abortion rights, labor unions, and environmental groups.

That's fine. Just don't associate them with gay rights.

Now, to this directly:

4. As the country continues to “sort out” self -defined evangelical voters are increasingly loyal to the Republican Party and their votes are not up for grabs as you suggest.

If that were the case, then why did the Democrats push to strip gays of rights, which supposedly has no purpose other than appealing to these voters? Why have the Democrats spent so much time on hand-wringing about "faith" and "moral values", if these voters cannot be attracted?

The recent firestorm over the Miers nomination is a good example. It is an empty threat that evangelicals would "stay home" in the next election -- their perception of how hostile a Democratic regime would be to religion is more than enough to get them to the polls. However, they know that politicians jump when angry voters command, because angry voters don't give money and don't do grassroots organizing efforts to get out other voters -- and without both, poof!

Now, if only glbts were so bold and so daring as to actually make their feelings known to Democrats. How do you think the Kerry campaign would have reacted if, after his antigay bigoted remarks, HRC, for one, had cut off the millions of dollars and hours in time they were spending to promote him and instead started spending it on blocking state constitutional amendments?