I will admit that I am impatient by nature and like immediate results as opposed to a slow steady progress approach - especially on gay rights issues. I am also pretty direct by nature - as you may have guessed from some of my commentary - and I agree that it is time for our supposed political allies to deliver. On the issue of gay rights, my desire for action my stem in part from my many years in the closet and my desire to see needed changes in my lifetime. In addition, changes in federal legislation are critical for those of us living in backward states still largely controlled by politicians with a Christianist mindset. The issues I want resolved are the following: (1) hate crimes based on sexual orientation, (2) an employment anti-discrimination act including sexual orientation, (3) a repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and (4) same-sex marriage/domestic partnerships.
With the upcoming Democrat debate on gay issues hosted by HRC and Logo, Newsweek has two articles worth checking out. Are they wonderful articles? No, but at least they are appearing in a widely circulated national magazine, thereby hopefully causing potential straight allies to understand why these laws are needed. Here are the links: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20124556/site/newsweek/ and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20121789/site/newsweek/ Here are a few highlights:
Aug. 5, 2007 - In a crowded primary field, every vote counts. So it’s probably not surprising that six of the eight Democratic presidential contenders for 2008 plan to participate in the first debate devoted entirely to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues on Aug. 9 in Los Angeles. (Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd declined to attend, citing scheduling conflicts) Still, the event’s sponsors, the Human Rights Campaign and Viacom’s Logo cable TV network, are touting the event as an historic opportunity for the gay community to raise its issues on a national stage. The forum, moderated by Margaret Carlson of Bloomberg News, will run from 9-11 p.m. ET on Logo and Logo.com. (The sponsors say they invited GOP candidates to participate in their own gay debate, but that none signed on.)
While gay and lesbian voters have largely been a reliable voting bloc for Democrats at least since the ‘80s, some activists say their community is taken for granted by the party. Privately, political strategists say candidates walk a fine line between being progressive on gay issues and possibly alienating some conservative voters, including some Democrats. NEWSWEEK’s Kendyl Salcito spoke with John D’Emilio, a historian of gay history and professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, about the upcoming event. Excerpts:
Only about four percent of the voting population is gay. Is the focus of a “gay debate” too narrow? Well, four percent self-identified as gay or lesbian or bisexual. There are two points to make about that. First, there are still people who won’t self-identify, so the figure is probably a little bigger—maybe six percent. And we know that the six percent is not equally distributed around the country. Urban areas are more likely to have a higher percentage than rural ones. You’re going to have larger populations in the state of Massachusetts than you’re going to have in North Dakota. So in some states this forum might make a bigger difference than in others.
1 comment:
The "gay" vote has always been small in terms of demographics, but it has generally been regarded as a force for progress in the American experiment toward total equality. Ever since Harvey Milk crossed the barrier, many GLBT politicians have recognized that they speak not only for GLBT, but for the American Ideals of Enlightenment Liberalism.
In many ways, how we regard the gay community reflects how we regard the WHOLE community. Similarly, the same could be said for the blacks, Hispanics, etc.
Also, let's not forget the financial and media influence that numerous GLBT have achieved. If the GLBT financial legions had not chosen Bill Clinton early in 1991, he still would have lost, except that Ross Perot stole votes from Bush I. Many of us thought Bill was smarter than his wandering-philandering cock would expose him again and again, already revealed in Arkansas. And save for his naive hubris of the executive order on inauguration, I still believe Bill has been one of GLBT's most accommodating politicians (as did blacks, Hispanics, and even the great White Middle Class).
The PROBLEM has always been Hilary. She frightens folk, her ambitious use of a philandering husband to climb the political aspiration to be the first woman president, and all her horrible judgments and comments during the 1991-1994 period caused many of us consternation. Blaming "vast right wing conspiracies," acting like Tammy Wynette, her "behind closed doors" HilaryCare with Magaziner, not only targeted the social conservative ire at her arrogance and pandering and playing victim, every White House fiasco during the Clinton years could be laid at Hilary's insecurities and abuses. HilaryCare Debacle ushered-in the 1994 Republican Revolution of Gingrich and the Neo-Conservative Evangelical and Zionists extremes. Hilary was the fodder and fuel, not Bill.
Hilary's "political handlers" testing the waters, "sliding the message," obscuring her flip-flops, her two-faced claims, only reinforces the disdain that GLBT pioneers Hilary engenders. When Solmonese made HIS political ambitions of Riding Hilary Power through the HRC, most GLBT abandoned both HRC and Hilary.
GLBT may not be large in NUMBERS, but we represent the most basic intuitions of Enlightenment Ideals. If Amerika mistreats blacks and gays, how can it's claim to equality and fairness ever be achieved in this unique experiment in human history. Even Republicans in the Sixties and Seventies were more accommodating of GLBT that today's Democrats. One only needs to research some of Barry Goldwater's and Ronald Reagan's comments to see how politicized the Neo-conservatives, abetted by Hilary-Victim Enabler became the lightening-rod of all political duplicity (Macbeth entirely), has changed Amerikan politics for the worse.
Democrats, sadly, now feed at the very same lobbyist troughs on K-Street, and play the same histrionics as Murdoch's Faux News Corporation. Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, Boxer -- none have political SPINE, all beholden to the same corporate and special interests of Reid's THREE lobbyists sons. Now, a few GLBT like Solmonese is just as shameless, just as opportunistic, in the politics of SHOW. Not even Joe Biden has any self-respect, as Hilary is the LOW that even Murdoch cannot belittle.
In the current sea of political FRAUDS, only Obama, Edwards, and Paul offer any substance, and most GLBT activists are working for one of these three campaigns, but K-Street has so dominated the scene, that even Hilary looks like a "winner." Even Romney looks "conservative." Even Guiliani looks straight.
Politically, WE have all been coopted by Special Interests, or in Pelosi's favored term, "constituents." Either plutocracy or lobbyists dictate our choices, market the lowest-common-denominator, and give us Larry King to moderate pablum of indifference. As economists keep telling us, why vote in elections that don't matter, vote with your pocketbook. What they forgot, is that all our shopping locations have already been pre-selected to feed self-interest. From Evangelicals, to Zionists, to K-Street, to Financial Interests, Pharmaceuticals, to Hilary. If you accept DISSIMULATION as honest, you'll buy anything we sell.
Even the Bancrofts caved to Murdoch's purchase of the WSJ, while the Schulzbergers change their loyalties to the Saudis. Where are the John Bogle's of Public Citizen Decency? Hidden by Special Interests. Puppets ALL.
Post a Comment