Giant Sucking Sound

Gays in America had about $500 billion in spending power in 2004, if you take the oft-cited 1999 figure of $450 billion and adjust it for inflation.  That is more than the purchasing power of all but the 25 wealthiest nations in the world.  (Some have alleged it to be much higher.  But if you assume that a conservative 5 percent of Americans – or 15 million – are gay, then $500 billion would give you a per capita income of about $33,000.  So I certainly don't think that figure is too high.)

So how much did opponents of anti-gay-marriage ballot propositions spend to defeat them that year?  $6.5 million.  $6.5 million.  That is a paltry 1.3 percent of our income.  And less than half of that ($3 million) came from the same gay-rights groups whose job it is to run interference for us on issues like this.

"Our" side was nearly even in financial terms with the "black hats," which raised $6.8 million.  Yet 13 state bans on gay marriage were passed in 2004 by a 3-to-1 margin.

Now, I don't know what the total revenues or advocacy budgets of the umpteen-thousand gay-rights groups are, but they have set up the debate over gay marriage as the great civil rights test of the GLBT movement, and all they could scrape together among them was $3 million?

Gloria Steinem, with whom I probably disagree on nearly everything, got at least one thing right when she said: "We can tell our values by looking at our checkbook stubs."

So what does this say about our values?  That we would rather spend our money on a night at the clubs, saunas or on drugs than we would on politics?  And what does it say about the GLBT organizations' rights?  Where is their money going, anyway?  "Gala dinners" to pat ourselves on the back and then raise more funds that we will squander?

Clearly, we need to spend more, or at least spend smarter.

(More at Boozhy ...)

Comments

[Richard]

I thought I'd chime in here for one and only one reason: I completely agree with Malcontent on this one. Despite the huge gap between our political views (I'm right and he's wrong), I am disgusted by the general apathy shown by our community to politics and our own battle for civil and human rights.

[Malcontent]

I like your blog and probably always will, Richard, but I hope you realize that the sincerist of my insults in that previous post -- i.e., "fabulist" -- paled greatly in comparison to "Jews for Hitler."

[Jack Malebranche]

So what does this say about our values? That we would rather spend our money on a night at the clubs, saunas or on drugs than we would on politics?

You said it; I didn't.

The answer is obviously yes. Though to be fair I don't think nights at the clubs, saunas or drugs probably represent the bulk of the money spent on politics. There are also cars, houses, technology, and everything that everyone else spends money on. I spend most of mine on art supplies, books and random things I want, how 'bout you?

My opinion would be that maybe homoseuxals in America don't care as much about the gay rights issues that the major organizations concern themselves with as they say they do. Same-sex marriage sounds nice to a lot of homos when polled, but they obviously don't care enough not to buy a new car. And I think that's just fine. It just sort of proves my point that these are not a downtrodden people facing constant harassment and discrimination, but a reasonably successful and integrated group of adults with interests apart from gay politics. They don't care because they don't have to. They have very little left to gain, and they're reasonably satisfied. The gay advocacy industry just creates civil rights issues and homophobia scares because those things open checkbooks. And, it seems, even those things don't work that often.

[Malcontent]

Or perhaps that many of them just realize that sending their earnings to HRC and Company is just money down a rathole anyway.

I'd much rather support individual candidates with whom I agree than most big groups or political parties, which is why all the two-dimensional debates about how I'm supposedly marching myself into the oven is just such a crock to me.

[North Dallas Thirty]

So how much did opponents of anti-gay-marriage ballot propositions spend to defeat them that year? $6.5 million. $6.5 million. That is a paltry 1.3 percent of our income. And less than half of that ($3 million) came from the same gay-rights groups whose job it is to run interference for us on issues like this.

"Our" side was nearly even in financial terms with the "black hats," which raised $6.8 million. Yet 13 state bans on gay marriage were passed in 2004 by a 3-to-1 margin.

Now, I don't know what the total revenues or advocacy budgets of the umpteen-thousand gay-rights groups are, but they have set up the debate over gay marriage as the great civil rights test of the GLBT movement, and all they could scrape together among them was $3 million?

Well, first off, Mal, they were spending about two to three times that, minimum, supporting the homophobes who were pushing and supporting these bans.

Second off, I don't think gay organizations, gay Democrats, and others of the liberal ilk have ever realized the inherent contradiction of their calling these antigay initiatives wrong, bigoted, and immoral, when they continually call the people who support these initiatives pro-gay and gay-supportive.

In short, the gay community put support of homophobes ahead of gay civil rights.

[Jack Malebranche]

Malcontent -

Or perhaps that many of them just realize that sending their earnings to HRC and Company is just money down a rathole anyway.

I agree, but I don't think most of them are pulled in to this debate enough to realize that.

[Jack Malebranche]

I'd much rather support individual candidates with whom I agree than most big groups or political parties, which is why all the two-dimensional debates about how I'm supposedly marching myself into the oven is just such a crock to me.

I'd agree with that as well. Generally speaking, I think people should look at candidates, not parties. I hate parties.

[sonicfrog]

I'ld write a whitty comment on this topic, but I'm just out the door on my way to IKEA to buy a bedroom set. Ta Ta!

[Michelle]

sonic - at least you'll be saving money for donating to someone's campaign!

[anapestic]

I don't see how our supposed $500 billion of spending power is relevant to this discussion, but if you're going to use that as a denominator, then didn't the pro-gay forces spend far more, as a percentage of income, than the anti-gay forces?

I spent exactly the same amount on pro-gay political contributions as I did on clubs, saunas, and drugs, and they were amounts equally well not spent. None of the anti-marriage amendments was even close in the polls, and to suggest that raising more money would have made a difference strikes me as wishful thinking. I don't see the point in throwing money at a lost cause. If there comes a point where money is needed to defend marriage rights in Massachusetts and there is a reasonable chance of prevailing, I might consider donating.

[Anthony]

I rarely if ever give money to political causes though I think of myself as someone who is engaged in the debate and intereseted in the outcome.

In the year that gay marriage was coming before the Canadian parliament I finally opened the cheque book and gave lotsa cash out of my sauna and drug budget. Now that the matter is settled (assuming the sonofabitch Tories don't reopen it) I have closed the chequebook again and I dont intend to reopen it.

I would prefer to work for a cause and at the very least vote. I don't consider giving money to be part of it. Perhaps that's a Canadian thing?

[Aatom]

anapestic makes a great point. considering the fund-raising power and reach of the so-called 'family' political set, i'm impressed that we still managed to outspend them on this issue.

of course, i would rather we spend 10X as much to push the issue along as fast as possible, but we'll get there eventually. I think it's a little unfair to lambast the gay community for not spending their disposable income on politics when I would wager that a larger percentage of our community is politically involved than the rest of the country, relatively speaking. And as a poor, check-to-check New Yorker, I can say that those that can't spend, do. I am a vocal advocate for gay marriage online and in my personal life, and do whatever I can to educate those around me on the issue. And Jack's right, too, many of US aren't even convinced that gay marriage is a worthwhile goal (I obviously respectfully disagree), but given that we aren't unified on the issue, it's even more impressive that we still managed to raise so much money.

Love the recent posts, Mal, but I can't help but notice that Robbie has been MIA recently. Is he on vacation?

[Aatom]

Having said that, I have no doubt that the lobbying groups that we trust with our money are spending it in the absolute worst possible manner.

[Robbie]

*waves* I'm around and stuff. Work decided to slam me out of a clear blue sky this week, and I've already lost one whole day due to the longest, most pointless business lunch ever. I've been playing catch up as a result, and that doesn't leave much time to surf the web or write posts. But, I'm almost all done.

[brian]

Must chime in because I find myself agreeing with Mal--which is rare. We don't invest, and when we do, we don't do it wisely. GLAAD can raise $5 million in a night for a big celeb-filled party and all they do as an organization is write press releases and get all self-righteous on the people that are paying their rent. HRC is the big player, but I fail to see any real progress since they stormed on to the national scene. How are we doing any better at a national level.

On the ground, the community centers and small advocacy groups are making progress. They are encouraging political activism, holding elected accountable, and inspiring truly gay friendly candidates. Here in LA, NGLTF is working with the LA Gay & Lesbian Center on a voter ID project. It's what the GOP does to hold on to red-state America and it works. NGLTF has had a lot of local success in their organizing efforts. The problem is its expensive and not flashy. It's about talking one on one with people, registerring voters and staying in touch. No rubber chicken dinners and celeb-filled red carpets so 99% of the gays stay far far away.

[Aatom]

Brian, I couldn't agree more. Here in NYC in the AIDS community, the HRC equivalent is obviously GMHC, which receives the bulk of people's hard-earned money from the AIDS Walk, and is widely known as one of the most mismanaged bureaucracies in the industry. Smaller outfits like Body Positive, on the other hand, have to scrape and pinch every penny but they manage to put out a lot more educational material, get more fully-trained professionals out into the field helping people, and never rest on their laurels. GMHC always seems to be staffed by volunteer temps who have no idea what the hell is going on.

The problem with donations is that people who are willing to part with some of their money aren't willing to do the necessary research to find out where it is best being spent. A blogger-based educational campaign might be a brilliant use of our resources along those lines...

[Jack Malebranche]

Aatom -

I think it's a little unfair to lambast the gay community for not spending their disposable income on politics when I would wager that a larger percentage of our community is politically involved than the rest of the country, relatively speaking.

It would be interesting to see someone produce some figures on that. It would provide some sense of perspective. I don't know that many people gives a ton of money (proportionate to what they have to spend) to political campaigns. I won't even give $1 to the presidential election fund on my tax return. It's my dollar, and the bastards take too much already!

Don't worry Aatom. Almost everyone respectfully disagrees with me on same-sex marriage on some level--even my closest allies. I'm an idealist on that point. I think a lot of people, though, while liking the idea in theory, are not actively committed to it in the way a small portion of the gay community is. As with anything, if people are reasonably happy and doing fine, they turn their attention to living life and away from idealistic battles. I think most homos as a group are doing fine, or at least as well as almost everyone else. The fact that they can't marry is an inconvenience, not a quality of life threatening issue for most of them. Most people think about what they're going to buy with their next paycheck, not about who's going to get their money when they die. It's human nature.

[Craig Ranapia]

Aatom:

I think you've made damn good points. My partner and I contribute substantial amounts to our local hospice because it's well-run, the management spend more time delivering services to the community than bitching and in-fighting, and they can demonstrate that they're not pissing our contributions up against the wall in "overheads" and masturbatory rubber chicken galas.

I also think the only cheque many gay advocacy groups need is a reality check. I'm sure firing off self-righteous press releases to the gay media makes everyone feel good. Back in the real world, preaching to the perverted - and sneering at everyone else - just doesn't get meaningful or lasting change on the done list. Getting out of your political comfort zone, and having a long-term vision and political nous, does.

[Northeast Libertarian]

I agree with your point, Mal, as a Libertarian, though I fail to see where NDT gets his snarky "holier than thou" attitude towards the Demopublicans -- after all, his own Republicrat party is hardly neutral or "gay positive" on marriage or any other gay issue for that matter. It's a bit like a serial killer lambasting a wife-beater for "brutality." :)

[North Dallas Thirty]

It comes from the fact that Democrats claim they support gay rights and gay marriage while doing anything but.