The Real Agenda of the Leaders of “No on 8″
You’ll have to forgive me for participating in the LA Gay Center’s Virtual Townhall meeting, underway as I write and edit this. All questions have to pass through a moderator. And I wonder if this moderator will let through tough questions which might force the leaders of the “No on 8″ campaign to consider their own responsibility for the failed campaign. To wonder why they have failed to engage in any introspection since the ballot measure passed.
I doubt these left-of-center individuals even consider my question:
With a leadership which well represents its left-wing donor base, how do gay groups reach out to social moderates and conservatives whom we most need to move on the question of gay marriage?
It’s not just gay conservatives who are critical of the “No on 8″ campaign for failing to reach out to political conservatives, gays are on the left are also incensed. At his blog, gay left-winger (I say that as a description not an insult) Michael Petrelis has been taking on the complacency of what he calls Gay Inc. He faults gay leaders supposedly dedicated to defeating 8 for their paltry contributions to the cause.
Noting how former HRC chief Elizabeth Birch gave nearly fourteen times as much to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign as she did to the “No on 8″ campaign, Petrelis believes this “reveals how Birch, like HRC, is definitely more interested in putting money into electing Democrats than advancing gay equality.“
Michael, we’ve been saying that for years.
Petrelis isn’t the only one who thinks gay leaders are dodging accountability for Prop 8’s passage. In the LA Weekly, Patrick Range McDonald notes that on the November 13 Williams Institute “panel of experts to discuss the Proposition 8 loss:”
rather than finding an independent moderator, [Executive Director Brad] Sears turned over those duties to “No on 8″ campaign director Patrick Guerriero, who certainly had an interest in damage control. Sears’ decision was the first sign that “No on 8″ leaders were going to take full control of the evening.
As McDonald notes, all questions to that panel passed through that moderator. Read the whole thing!
To borrow a phrase from the Gipper, those panelists (and those in tonight’s virtual town hall) have “made a career of heading organizations.” They are less interested in solving problems than they are in maintaining their own prominence. And helping elect Democrats
7 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Career activists seem to have modeled themselves after career politicians. No matter how long they remain in office nothing is ever their fault!
Comment by Dave — November 25, 2008 @ 9:43 pm - November 25, 2008
I’ve realized this for half a decade, but it’s taken gays on the left like Petrelis until now to realize that Gay Inc. (I like the sound of that) is for all intents and purposes a fully-owned subsidiary of the DNC. They define “gay rights” by party affiliation, not action.
There is a gay leadership vacuum. I could make a dirty joke here but I won’t. Now is the time for the silent majority of gays, those who lived their lives with a quiet dignity, to step up and become the voice of gay America. But not before you read “The Art of War” and “How to Win Friends and Influence People” cover to cover. Twice.
Comment by Attmay — November 25, 2008 @ 11:24 pm - November 25, 2008
Now is the time for the silent majority of gays, those who lived their lives with a quiet dignity, to step up and become the voice of gay America.
Excellent idea, Attmay!
Comment by Pat — November 26, 2008 @ 7:17 am - November 26, 2008
sounds like what happened to the Feminist Movement. The bunch who ignore honor killings and the like, even in the USofA.
I think one of the problems is that the type of person that will sit through an entire meeting, and then another one the next day, is not the type of person who is really interested in any other issue except himself/herself (and position papers of course). They are the people who take power, folks. Terrible but true.
Comment by heather — November 26, 2008 @ 1:12 pm - November 26, 2008
“I doubt these left-of-center individuals even consider my question”
No kidding. Here’s a supposed “Virtual Town Hall” from the No On 8 crowd:
http://www.queerty.com/programming-note-live-blogging-the-prop-8-campaigns-virtual-town-hall-20081125/#more-33927
The major thrust is about trying to reach out to African-American voters more and questioning why No on 8 didn’t try to hitch onto Obama’s brand. While getting more AA support for marriage is certainly good, these are the same people who are telling us that the AA community (and Obama’s presence on the ballot) did NOT make the difference between Prop 8 passing and failing. Nothing about trying to get more Republicans or moderates on board, the people who will make the difference between winning and losing.
It’s not about building a broad coalition in favor of same-sex marriage. It’s about getting all the Democratic special interest groups behind same-sex marriage, whether that works or not.
Comment by DaveO — November 26, 2008 @ 3:14 pm - November 26, 2008
The major thrust is about trying to reach out to African-American voters more and questioning why No on 8 didn’t try to hitch onto Obama’s brand.
He’d throw us under the bus faster than you can say “Donnie McClurkin.”
While getting more AA support for marriage is certainly good, these are the same people who are telling us that the AA community (and Obama’s presence on the ballot) did NOT make the difference between Prop 8 passing and failing. Nothing about trying to get more Republicans or moderates on board, the people who will make the difference between winning and losing.
It’s not about building a broad coalition in favor of same-sex marriage. It’s about getting all the Democratic special interest groups behind same-sex marriage, whether that works or not.
We will fail unless we have bipartisan, multi-racial/ethnic support, and, yes, religious leaders on our side. Mainline Protestant churches as well as reform and reconstructionist synagogues come to mind as the most likely potential supporters. The anti-slavery and anti-segregation movements had religious leaders in prominent positions of the movement.
Comment by Attmay — November 27, 2008 @ 7:35 am - November 27, 2008
[...] The Real Agenda of the Leaders of “No on 8″ … dedicated to defeating 8 for their paltry contributions to the cause. Noting how former HRC chief Elizabeth Birch gave nearly fourteen times as much to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign as she did to the “No on 8″ campaign, … [...]
Pingback by campaign contributions | Apple.com — November 28, 2008 @ 12:46 am - November 28, 2008