|
Minor Details
The choice of a Democratic House Minority leader who is a real alternative to Republicans offered hope. In the past, San Francisco Rep. Nancy Pelosi was actually unafraid of the label "Liberal." She broke from party leaders to vote against the Iraq war resolution. She openly supports same-sex marriage. She actually said that one of her goals is to make sure that people know the difference between the two major parties. Now that she's in the Democratic leadership, will she, like her predecessor Dick Gephardt, cave in to be seen by the "President's" side? In the midst of all this, LGBT politics are in a sorry state. When it comes to our national political climate, we're expected to settle for something that is far from proud. It's down right pitiful. An increasing number of people claim that there is no difference between the two major political parties. But when it comes to LGBT issues, the difference is clear if not happy. Republicans would rather have LGBT people go away. For them, LGBT people are a nuisance. The radical right who dominate the Party do everything to make that happen. It's such an obsession that they can't let it go. And they know that the "moderates" (who used to be called conservatives) will cave in on LGBT rights to save their own skins. No one will sacrifice power, votes, or donations. Even LGBT Republicans are unwilling to identify with the rights of gay people as a whole if they are well-off enough to be protected. At least that's what the leader of the group founded to represent our interests in the "Grand Old Party" wrote this past year.
In response to that Log Cabin endorsement of the conservative agenda, Republicans are pleased, some Democrats are "we told you so" aghast, and the Log Cabiners, like lap-dogs, continue to feel honored by the scraps of attention Republican leaders toss them. So, the only alternative LGBT people are supposed to have is the Democratic Party. That's the party of "New Democrats" such as smiling, compromising Bill Clinton whom the Democrats tell us "has done more for gay people than any former President." It's clear that most Democratic politicians assure us that they're on our side, especially when it comes to asking for our votes. They argue that Democrats aren't as bad as Republicans. And they scapegoat critics of their party as it grows less able to inspire its traditional constituents, such as labor and working people. Progressive critics should be ashamed because they are "the reason the Republicans are successful." LGBT people are useful to Democratic politicians as long as the politicians' votes, donations, and power aren't on the line. But, with few exceptions, Democrats don't want to lose their positions either. Their leaders may sincerely want to work for us, but (we must accept with a smile) they "have to compromise," you see. And by that they mean they have to compromise on our issues. "We'd love to follow through, but you'll just have to wait." "We had to vote for DOMA for your own good." And remember, they keep telling us, it could be worse. Where's the evidence that these Democratic "friends" will stand up for us if anything of theirs is threatened? During this past campaign a gay man hired to bring out the LGBT vote for a Democratic incumbent assumed that we should understand that the candidate could not be seen at gay functions for fear of losing the more rural vote. I felt like the relative no one wanted to be seen with. The candidate lost anyway. Even compromising me didn't help. That's what LGBT people are supposed to accept. And of course we are fighting an ever-lasting "war against terrorism." So, even more we're supposed to put off our interests. You'd think then they'd all wait to pick on us since they expect us to support "United We Stand" and all that. But no, liberals compromise us; conservatives of both parties never compromise. Now the "it could be worse" argument works as long as the Democrats win with it. But it's getting clearer that the strategy isn't working. So, our choices seem to be to go with the winners, the Republicans, or with two losers: the Democrats who will compromise us for their fading hopes of winning nationally, or the Greens who have same-sex marriages, equal rights, and anti-gay bias in the military written into their party platform. There are 70 elected Green public officials around the country. But when Greens lose, it's not with the strategy of refusing to stand up for us. That's the sorry state of LGBT politics today. The two major parties argue that we should somehow proudly settle for it. We should settle for Republican dismissal and Democratic compromise. Well, that's just pitiful. Robert N. Minor, PhD, is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Kansas. His most recent book is Scared Straight: Why It's So Hard to Accept Gay People and Why It's So Hard to Be Human (HumanityWorks! 2001). He can be reached at www.fairnessproject.org. |
|
Outgoing House Minority leader Dick Gephardt says the Democractic Party must seek more conservative voters, but at what cost to the Party's commitment to gay civil rights? 
Rich Tafel, who is stepping down as the head of the Log Cabin Republicans, claims that there is no need for Congress to pass employment proection for gays and lesbians