Gays vs. Democratic Party

There is a long column in The Advocate that looks at the one sided relationship that exists between many LGBT Americans and the Democrat Party: we give money and campaign efforts to Democrat candidates and the Democrat Party and get little or nothing in return. Personally, I am beyond tired of it and hope that more people will take up the "Don't Ask, Don't Give" pledge and cease giving to the DNC until such time as campaign promises are delivered upon. How many times does one have to get thrown under the bus before it becomes pretty clear that the DNC views gays as a bunch of saps who can be sweet talked for money and then rejected. Here are some column highlights:
*
They’re fond of your checkbooks — and deaf to your demands for equal rights. What will it take for the Democratic Party to step up?
*
In 2004, Andy Szekeres, then a 21-year-old budding Democratic strategist with several political campaigns already under his belt, was working as the Wisconsin LGBT field coordinator for John Kerry’s presidential campaign. Szekeres estimates that he and his team registered 26,000 new gay voters across the crucial swing state that year, and on Election Night, Kerry won the state by about 11,000 votes—less than 0.5% of the overall vote. Though the win can be attributed to the support of various constituencies, there’s no question that Wisconsin would have wound up red—not blue—if it hadn’t been for gay voters’ strong backing of the Democratic ticket.
*
Fast-forward five years to Maine, where social conservatives proposed and funded Question 1, . . . While the national party had been more than happy to enlist the support of gay donors and campaign workers in its effort to get Kerry elected in 2004, it couldn’t be bothered to involve itself in the fight to maintain those voters’ and workers’ right to marry.
*
Szekeres’s experience is illustrative of the problem that many gay people, one of the most loyal Democratic constituencies alongside African-Americans and Jews, have vis-à-vis their relationship with the Democratic Party. “We give money to get something,” he says. “We don’t give money to get warm fuzzies. If I wanted that, I’d give money to the cat shelter.”
*
In the wake of the Maine defeat, a coterie of liberal bloggers and activists called for a temporary moratorium on DNC donations. The fledgling movement, which has adopted the motto “Don’t Ask, Don’t Give” and has attracted the likes of legendary gay rights activist David Mixner, hopes to discourage donations to the party until the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the repeal of both “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act. In so doing, these activists are hoping to reshape—if not completely upset—the relationship between gays and the Democratic Party.
*
Mixner and company remain defiant—whatever the consequences. “The goal is freedom,” he says, “And we have to go get it. They’re not going to give it to us. Instead of pumping money into the Democratic Party right now, we should be pumping money into our struggle for civil rights. Lobbying Washington. Challenging state ballot initiatives. Engaging in civil disobedience…. There’s no one right way.”
*
There's more to the column, but you get the drift. I agree with David Mixner - playing the same old game and getting little in return is senseless. While a monetary boycott may not result in a sea change in support for LGBT Issues, it may at least make it harder to simply take us for granted.