Empire State Pride Pitch Perfect on Hillary

With another Clinton election on the horizon, gay support for the architects of the Defense of Marriage Act seemed a fait accompli, but lo and behold, the head of one New York State gay organization is having none of it.

The head of a leading gay rights advocacy group in New York has begun criticizing Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's position on same-sex marriage and encouraging gays and lesbians to stop giving money to her re-election campaign. [. . .]

In his memo, which was reported on Tuesday on the Politicker Web site of The New York Observer, Mr. Van Capelle said that he refused to "lend my name and sell tickets" to any fund-raiser sponsored by a gay group for Mrs. Clinton's re-election campaign. He said supporting such fund-raisers for Mrs. Clinton would "actually hurt" the gay and lesbian community.

"It will send a message to other elected officials that you can be working against us during this critical time and not suffer a negative pushback from the gay community," he said. "We have become a community that throws money at politicians, and we demand nothing in return. And that's what we get: nothing. It's the wrong message to send."

Mr. Van Capelle notes he will still vote for Clinton, but in his capacity as the head of a gay rights organization, he is not justified in signing on to fundraisers for a candidate working against the group's expressed interests.

Perfect. Hopefully certain others will follow suit.

Comments

[beautifulatrocities]

I never heard of that group, but never mind. As I keep pointing out, the problem is not Hillary Clinton, or George Bush, or Jeff Gannon, etc, but the fact that an overwhelming majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage. The only alternative is to try to change their minds.

Capelle's logic is flawed too, equating Hill's support of DOMA with her election "hurting" gays. Only if your view of the world is so narrow as to exclude everything but gay marriage

[North Dallas Thirty]

The thing I loved was Clinton-whores like Thomas Duane, who said Hillary needed to be "educated" on the issue. She has been educated for nearly ten years now; the problem is, the lesson that she learned was that she can say and do whatever she wants and gays will call it "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive" because she's a Democrat.

I mean, really. When gay rights groups drop millions of dollars to promote views that they would condemn as vicious homophobia in anyone else, what else CAN you infer?

Serious kudos to Mr. Van Capelle. I wonder, though, if he realizes that his principled stand will likely cost him his position, his friends, and his job. You don't criticize a Democrat in the gay community and go unscathed.

[Tom]

So he claims Billary will hurt the gay community but will vote for her anyway... Give me a call when his head stops spinning.

[Craig Ranapia]

beautifulatrocities:

No, it's not about being "narrow", just consistency. Agree with it or not, Empire State Pride Agenda's position of DOMA and same-sex marriage has been crystal clear and unambigous. Now Mrs Clinton has her POV, and I'll do her the decency of assuming her views are held sincerely and in good faith rather than being a case of learning the dark art of "triangulation" from the master, but could you imagine the shit storm if the ESPA hosted a fundraiser for a DOMA-supporting Republican because he had an otherwise OK record on gay rights but just needed "more education"?

[Joe.My.God.]

Ya know, when Hillary is elected dictator, you guys will be the first ones up against the wall.

Also, during the NYC pride parade last year, Hillary blew me a kiss when she walked by. I almost wet myself.
True story!

[Rob]

Hilary is a realist. She knows that there is no way anyone who acknowleges support for marriage equality will ever be electable as president in today's political climate. Bigotry, ignorance, and hatred are the rules of the day and there's no reasoning with conservative dogma.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Or, more likely, Rob, she really is an antigay bigot; she just happens to know that most gays are too brainwashed and spineless to ever call her on it. So she lies and shovels in the cash as her gay puppets dance, giving millions of dollars to her to advance her homophobic views and making lame excuses about why signing over their dignity and rights are OK as long as she gets "elected".

[Donald]

Come on NDT you know full well Hillary is not an anti gay bigot, your just spewing your right wing Clinton bashing hate that quite frankly after 14 years of hearing from the extreme right wing it has gotten very tired and worn out. Would I like her to be for marriage? Sure but it ain't gonna happen any time soon. I would accept a few more anti gay bigots like Hillary over your fellow conservatives like, little Ricky, Pat Roberts, Shelby Chambliss and the like. Hillary is not comparing us to animal fuckers like your fellow right wing travelers do.

[Craig Ranapia]

Rob wrote:
Hilary is a realist. She knows that there is no way anyone who acknowleges support for marriage equality will ever be electable as president in today's political climate.

I reply:
Ah, yes, when Democrats support DOMA, 'don't ask, don't tell', pander to fag-baiting clerics etc. they are "realists" and deserve a highly lucrative pass; Republicans who do the same are drooling bigots who deserve all the ordure heaped on their heads... Hey, at least the much reviled LCR (controversially) declined to endorse Bush in '04 and will stand up and actively oppose legislative fag-bashers in their own party. And kudos to Van Capelle for standing up and saying that he's actually going to defend the principles of his organisation without fear or (partisan) favour. About fracking time...

[James]

North,

Yeah I think it is a stretch to call Sen Clinton an anti-gay bigot. Now before you tell me to stop drinking the Kool-Aid, I do think it is cowardly for her not to support gay marriage. I'm also glad folk are calling her out on it. But let's be honest: being against gay marriage goes across the political divide.

peace
james

[Craig Ranapia]

James:

Indeed, the problem is that way too many gay groups are desperate to give Democrats a free pass they'd never extend to Republicans. Do you seriously think ESPA would he holding a fundraiser for Hilary Clinton if she was a GOP moderate who opposed same-sex marriage, supported DOMA, but had a generally positive voting record on other gay-rights issues? If you believe that, I've got a bridge with a heliport specially designed for flying pigs to sell you.

[Donald]

I think HRC endorsed Al D'Amato over Chuck Schumer. So depending on the republican they can be endorsed. Give me the names of national leaders in GOP that would pursue the endorsment of a gay group in the first place.

[James]

Craig,

I think ESPA is less ideological than you make the group. Don't get me wrong. It ain't perfect, but I can see ESPA supporting the candidate you imagine.

peace

[North Dallas Thirty]

Come on NDT you know full well Hillary is not an anti gay bigot, your just spewing your right wing Clinton bashing hate that quite frankly after 14 years of hearing from the extreme right wing it has gotten very tired and worn out.

Interesting....mere hours ago, anyone who opposed gay marriage was antigay and a homophobic bigot.

Don't blame ME for the fact that applying the rule didn't get the result you wanted.

But let's be honest: being against gay marriage goes across the political divide.

Go tell HRC that, son, but wear a flak jacket; Joe Solmonese wasn't elected HRC President because of his qualification, but because he'd already sworn unquestioning support to Democrats.

[James]

North,

I'm no fan of HRC, so you are telling the wrong person

:-)

peace

[beautifulatrocities]

Sure they get points for consistency if they're a one-issue group. If they won't give money to anyone who doesn't endorse gay marriage, their coffers will be pretty full; what incentive is there for a politican to go out on a limb on an issue 70% of Americans disagree with, & that affects 3 to 5% of the population? None. Politicians represent their constituents, not themselves.

[Robbie]

I think my last sentence needs the most emphasis: ". . . in his capacity as the head of a gay rights organization, he is not justified in signing on to fundraisers for a candidate working against the group's expressed interests."

When a gay group says its ultimate goal is gay marriage, there's no excuse for them to run off supporting politicians who work against it. Unfortunately, gay organizations have thrown a lot of money at Democrats who do not share their stated goals. They've raised funds for candidates who would be excoriated endlessly if they were Republican.

So, it's nice to actually see a group who wants gay marriage above all to not kowtow to a popular Democrat who doesn't share their views. It's rather refreshing. Given how much crap I give groups on this issue, I figure I should say something good about one when they get it right.

I don't see any dissonance Van Cappelle voting for Hillary. I'm sure he believes she is closest to his views on the issues that matter to him. On a personal level, he can vote how he likes. But, it's brilliant to see him separate his personal preference from the organization he's running and representing.

You don't see that very much in gay activism.

[North Dallas Thirty]

I don't see any dissonance Van Cappelle voting for Hillary. I'm sure he believes she is closest to his views on the issues that matter to him. On a personal level, he can vote how he likes. But, it's brilliant to see him separate his personal preference from the organization he's running and representing.

Totally agree, Robbie.

[Robbie]

Jeff, the thing is a lot of these groups have made gay marriage their #1 issue, their ultimate objective.

Supporting a Clinton, the granters of DOMA?

It's poor form at the very least.

From a more self-interested perspective, maybe they realize supporting her of all people leaves them open to the kinds of attacks that myself and others level at them - that they're less interested in gay rights and more interested in being party shills.

[beautifulatrocities]

When I evaluate a candidate, gay marriage is well down the list. I can't believe this is the deciding issue for people; there are far more serious things in American & in the world, & gay marriage is one I think is best left to the voters. When this is the only issue, it makes gays sound pretty narcissistic. Gay activists should work to draft civil union laws to secure equal rights rather than wasting their time on what's essentially a dead issue.

Tammy Bruce spoke at a university once & during the Q&A one of the womyn's studies drones asked, "You say you're pro-choice but how could you vote for Ronald Reagan when he supported legislation that wouldn't allow foreign aid to be used to fund abortion in overseas clinics?"

And Tammy's like, "Um, I don't pick a candidate on the basis of ONE issue." DUH

[Robbie]

Jeff - agreed. I did vote for Bush last election, after all.

I'm just saying, if you're running an organization with one avowed purpose that you've been hammering away at for years and years, where you call any Republican in opposition a homophobic bigot, you oughtn't be raising money for politicians who are against it. Otherwise, you're not the organization you claim to be.

[beautifulatrocities]

Ok, I see your point. It's better than the groups like NOW that maybe once had a purpose but are now nothing but shills for the DNC.

But since 3/4 of the states have or are in the process of enacting statutes restricting marriage to a man & a woman, withholding money from Hill is neither here nor there. Even if the Supreme Court were inclined to invalidate 35 state statutes - which it's not - it would be very difficult (and if, for fantasy's sake, they did, you would have a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage within a year). A few blue states may allow gay marriage (not California, where the voters are against it), but even in Massachusetts the voters may yet have their say. Them's the facts

[Robbie]

Agreed again.

But, I think gay rights are better served by organizations that truly are non-partisan, that reach out to both parties and both ideologies as best they're able. I think their message is better received by people who's minds may be changed if they're not a wholly owned subsidiary of one political party.

Many gay groups have flirted with NOW's fate, especially the HRC. So smacking them around whenever they have those tendencies is in order - as well as praising them when they resist the impulse.

[Noah]

Well at least the Democrats don't use anti-gay hate to fuel their campaign success...

Gay adoption the next wedge issue?

WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- Social conservatives in at least 16 states are pushing for state laws or constitutional amendments banning homosexuals from adopting.

Political analysts told USA Today some Republicans hope that gay adoption will do for this year's congressional races what gay marriage did for the Bush campaign in 2004, mobilizing religious conservatives in contested states. The issue could also distract from the administration's troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Backers of bans on adoption by homosexuals say they are simply concerned about children's welfare. "Now that we've defined what marriage is, we need to take that further and say children deserve to be in that relationship," said Greg Quinlan of the Pro-Family Network in Ohio, one of the states on the list.

State laws differ tremendously. Some, like New Jersey, allow both gay couples and singles to become foster or adoptive parents. Florida allows gays to be foster parents but not to adopt, while Mississippi allows single gays to adopt but not couples.

Whit Ayres, a Republican strategist and pollster, does not think that gay adoption has the same power as an issue that gay marriage did, pointing out that no one talks about "the sanctity of adoption."

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved

[North Dallas Thirty]

Look at it from this perspective, Noah; gay organizations like HRC, NGLTF, and others support the following actions.

-- Unlimited abortion, including children who are well past the age of viability

-- Removal of parental rights and notification for medical procedures involving surgery and/or drug administration that are the direct result of teenage sex

-- Lawsuits and legal groups that argue that websites showing in explicit detail how to lure in, coerce, and rape children, then cover one's tracks to avoid prosecution and/or capture

-- Lawsuits and legal groups demanding the right to solicit and perform sex in public restrooms

I think it should be patently obvious from that the value that gay-rights organizations put on children.

This is what comes when gays allow gay rights to be hijacked to support political parties or unrelated issues.