Earlier today, in the wake of yesterday’s vote in the New York Senate rejecting gay marriage, the folks at AOL asked me to write about about gay leadership. Shortly after I sent the completed post it, they published it. Let me whet your appetite with the first three paragraphs.
In the immediate aftermath of the passage of California’s Proposition 8 last fall — where voters amended the state’s constitution to recognize only marriages between one man and one woman — there was a lot of finger-pointing in the gay community, but no bloodletting.
Leaders of all the major gay organizations kept their jobs, including the leader of the one organization dedicated to promoting gay marriage and the head of the leading gay rights group in the Golden State. Well, Patrick Sammon, head of Log Cabin Republicans, did announce his retirement, but he was resigning for personal reasons and no one was blaming him for Proposition 8’s passage.
Last month, when Maine became the 31st state to reject state-recognition of gay marriage at the ballot box, gay leaders put on their best game face, pointing to voter approval in Washington state of domestic partnerships, but didn’t wonder, at least not publicly, if their own leadership was to blame.
I don’t understand your argument at all. Liberal democrats predominate in gay organizations because they founded those organizations and populate them, and provide all the energy for the advancement of gay issues.
Republicans are lacking because Republicans, for the overwhelming most part, have not been supportive of gay issues. As one of the rare Republicans who cares about these issues, it is on you to plow the fields of your political environment. Republicans are your friends, your political colleagues – it is for YOU to create a movement on the right side of the spectrum. But it seems you are far more interested in bashing liberals – bashing the people who have helped to achieve all the progress we have seen – than working to effect change for gays. What is this nonsense where you blame the liberal gay organizations for their failure to reach out to Republicans? You are the one who is failing, in a massive way, to convince the people who sit next to you on most other issues.
Given the ZERO votes from Republicans in the latest defeat, shouldn’t the call go out for new leadership in the gay Republican ranks? Or, given that there aint much of a bench, at least maybe a call for some self-criticism and an effort at a new approach?
I agree, but I would go even further. I think if we are going to go the whole identity-politics route and have “gay leaders” to begin with, as it seems we are, then they need to reach out not only to Republicans but specifically to Christian and other religious Americans, because frankly, I believe that the hate and animosity many gays (and other leftists) have for Christians is responsible for a disproportionate amount of the rancor and anger in American politics today. And I believe it is mostly based on false perceptions and stereotypes.
In other words I think there’s a hell of a lot of gays who are liberals, and reflexively support policy they wouldn’t otherwise support, simply because they believe that Republicans are the party of Christians and they hate Christians, so everything else Republicans want must be wrong too.
Tano, it’s not that you don’t understand my argument, it’s that you don’t want to understand it. Go read the piece.
One reason Republicans have not been supportive of gay issues is that the gay leadership doesn’t know how to talk to them. And that’s why we need a change, to get a leadership willing to make the efforts to change Republican minds.
I’ve addressed some ways to make that approach on this blog and would be glad to share them with the gay leadership should they invite me to speak at their conclaves, but so far, most haven’t.
I enjoyed reading the full article, B. Daniel. Tano…your argument sounds good at first. Unfortunately, I attended universities where your rhetoric falls under the category of “A Dime for a Dozen.” If B. Daniel was at the helm of the organizations mentioned, then there would be change afoot. Unfortunately, he is not. Therefore, Tano, it is in your court to start – the finger pointing gets old really, really fast. Turn some of that indignant rhetoric into something constructive and talk with “your” leadership.
“One reason Republicans have not been supportive of gay issues is that the gay leadership doesn’t know how to talk to them.”
Oh c’mon Dan. If that is a reason, then it is an a trivially small one. Republicans, and conservatives have been hostile to gay issues long before any gay activist stood up and said anything to them.
Once again, when the issue before us is a political party that is hostile to gay issues, you choose to ignore their responsibility for their own positions, you choose to ignore your own responsibility in failing to convince them of anything, and you choose to blame the very people who have worked the hardest and accomplished the most to advance gay issues. Totally bizarre.
I repeat. YOU should be the one to take the lead in convincing Republicans to become enlightened on gay issues, and you should also (horrors…) form alliances of friendship (albeit critical friendship) with liberal gay groups. If you can’t do that, then I don’t see how you have any standing to ask anyone else to extend themselves beyond their comfort zone.
“so far, most haven’t.”
Why not approach them in such a manner that they (being normal human beings) might actually be interested in inviting you? You are just playing a totally passive role here. The liberals are responsible to reach out to you, they are responsible for converting Republicans, just like they have been responsible for the sum total of the gay movement for as long as it has existed. You are just going to (continue to) reap the benefit of their work while trashing them, so as to win favor with the very people who oppose the movement.
Why would a group that demonstrates such animosity and disdain for religion want to be apart of something that is inherently and historically religious?
Groups like GOProud and Log Cabin have been making long-standing efforts at reaching out to faith-based Republicans since the late 1970’s. I think the Stonewall riots were in 1969 if I’m not mistaken. There’s not that much historical disparity between gay liberals and gay conservatives…and I’m sure if I did my research I could find gay conservatives back to ’69 if not before.
I don’t think either that the gay community not knowing how to talk to Republicans is a trivial one. It is an epidemic. I see more closed minds from the gay Left than I do from the gay Right all the time. That’s not to say it hasn’t been justified due to some of the talk that has come from people of faith.
And…I may get slashed for this…but, don’t much care. I would really like to see a more grown-up approach to the gay pride parades. If the whole purpose is to show the straight community that we can raise healthy, functional families…then trotting around in ass-less chaps and dog collars really isn’t all that convincing. I don’t subscribe to the notion that using bad behavior to point out bad behavior in the straight community for the purposes of saying, “See they’re the same–that’s why we deserve to get married.”…is really weak.
If we’re capable of raising healthy family units and want respect–its time we start acting like it. Admittedly, conservatives are right. Families are at the core of any stable society…and the gay community seems focused on the sex act alone (look at every publication we have–sex ads everywhere–gay conservative blogs and papers aside.)
Sex does not a family make. Psychological stability makes a family. In my humble opinion, its best we jettison our fear at confronting some of our community members and their self-destructive behavior (no–I don’t want to legislate against it).
Sometimes you have to change things on the inside before changes on the outside can be made.
So your answer is to keep right on preaching to the choir and keep right on pissing & moaning because the eeeeeeevil Republicans hate you so much.
Good choice.
When a majority of gays start living in lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationships, we’ll get the right to marry. But not until then. Until gay leadership is made up of lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable couples, no one will take the gay marriage movement seriously.
Even if gay marriage is good for society, most gays don’t want it. And I think I can say “most gays” with some certainty. Make a list of the gays you know, and count how many are in lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationships. You don’t get to include those in open relationships. (”But straights do that! Those hypocrites!”) OK, what’s the percentage?
Yes, divorce rates have gone up in the straight community. Rather than use that as an excuse, we can see it as an opportunity–we can do better than that. Gay relationships in history were known for their fierce loyalty. We can show the world what passionate monogamy really means.
Women who fought for the right to vote actually wanted to vote. They didn’t say, “We don’t plan to vote, voting goes against our lifestyle, and in fact, we think that participating in the patriarchal, oppressive government is evil, but we’re marching so that if there’s some woman out there who actually does want to vote, we want her to be able to.” They didn’t spend most of their time planning parades and rallies which mocked voting. We need leadership that organizes events based on the traditional values we want to share with society, not events which are shocking and subversive.
We don’t have to be an instant cliche like Adam Lambert. We can bring a new intensity to old values. Nothing is more beautiful and powerful than two men who have dedicated their lives to each other.
‘So your answer is to keep right on preaching to the choir and keep right on pissing & moaning because the eeeeeeevil Republicans hate you so much.”
Actually TGC, I tried to be rather clear, and I thought I succeeded, even at the cost of being rude. My answer is for gay Republicans to accept the primary responsibility for changing the hearts of their fellow party members. I don’t see any pissing and moaning on my part. I ask Dan to stop blaming liberals for failing to do the things that he is in a far better position to do than they are.
I see lots of bashing of the liberal gay movement on this blog, even though they are responsible for all that has happened for the good in the political realm on these issues. But no bashing of the virulently anti-gay conservative Republicans who are responsible for so much of the bad.
Well fine. They must know by now that you are intent on playing nice with them, no matter how much they oppress gay people. So use that to your advantage, and nicely force the issue with them. Don’t shirk responsibility by acting as if it is entirely on the liberal’s shoulders to win your freedom for you.
Actually, Tano, that’s just because you’re trying to defend your liberal hypocrisy.
Playing down its support for gay marriage, the HRC mobilized its 650,000 members to staff phone banks, raise money, and participate in get-out-the-vote campaigns to elect candidates sympathetic to gay issues, even if they didn’t support gay marriage. The group was the single biggest donor to Democratic state Senate races in New Hampshire, helping the party take control of both chambers of the Legislature for the first time since 1874.
The group also helped congressional candidates from Arizona to Florida and Ohio, and party activists believe the organization can play an even larger role in the 2008 elections. The idea, leaders say, is to become a steady source of funds and grass-roots support for Democrats — more akin to a labor union than a single-issue activist group.
“They took it to the grass roots and had people in individual states helping, either by volunteering or sending personal contributions,” said Tina Stoll , a Democratic fund-raiser. Instead of throwing its money at defeating ballot initiatives banning gay marriage, the HRC focused on electing Democratic majorities — even if it meant helping candidates who weren’t fully in support of their agenda, she said.
Add to that the fact that liberal gays fully endorse and support so-called “virulently anti-gay” activities when carried out by Obama Party members.
Why should gays who are Republicans lift a finger to support bigots and hypocrites like you, Tano? Why should we put up with you namecalling our friends and colleagues as “antigay” when you support and endorse the Louis Farrakhan base of the Obama Party? You are the ones who are making fools of yourself and enemies of Republicans.
I read somewhere that the HRC (I believe that’s the organization) has a thirty-year lease for office space in D.C. That they fully intend to still be needed when I’m almost eighty does not exactly fill me with confidence in their commitment to getting results.
They seem to care more about keeping their high-paying jobs than anything else. That does, indeed, seem to be the trouble with gay activists in general. Like the feminists, they intend to turn their aggrievement into a perpetual meal-ticket.
Asphenaz in #9 above:
I’ve often felt this way too. There is a HUGE disconnect between what our community says they want and what their actions indicate they actually want.
Many, many gay men are quite happy living the promiscous, multi-partnered lives they have and don’t have any interest in monogamy whatsoever. If the whole point of gay marriage is simply for the sake of benefits…then civil unions should suffice; hence the bitching that civil unions aren’t “equal” needs to stop.
However, if the gay community wants the equality of marriage and the core values that go along with it–then their is a faith and psychological health component that must be taken into consideration; especially if the adoption of children is at stake.
Seems to me the gay community suffers largely from a disconnect in it’s priorities.
Perhaps the best course of action would be to get gay liberals and conservatives together and sit down to decide what the hell it is we really want–because until that is decided the fracturing will continue.
There is no harm in understanding (or expecting) that the community as whole needs to grow up to a certain degree…and typically when people grow up…that’s when they become conservative.
Fixed it for ya. Well, it’s either that or they don’t really WANT what they claim they want.
Please do explain, since I’m apparently an idiot, what’s so great about DADT and DOMA? Dying for an explanation of that one. What’s so great about a liberal president giving the finger to gays? What’s so great about libearl pols surrounding themselves with bigoted homophobes. Please do tell.
Seems to me that YOU need to spend more time winning over the allegedly “more tolerant than thou” liberals who give you hand jobs for campaign donations and leave you in the alley when they no longer have any use for you.
“Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!!!” Actually, the only ones doing the most oppressin’ is the liberal left that you routinely shower with votes and cash.
Tell me, why should Republicans waste two minutes on such obviously self-loathing people like the gay left? Why should they waste time and energy on those adamantly opposed to freedom and liberty? I earnestly await your reply as I’ve been waiting for years for somebody to explain that.
From KQED Capital Notes:
The 68th Speaker of the California Assembly has been chosen by a majority of the chambers Democratic majority — so says the 67th leader of the lower house, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass.
The new leader, says Bass, is Asssemblymember John Perez, a Democrat from Los Angeles. He could formally win the job as soon as next week.
Perez was elected to the Assembly last year.
Perez, whose cousin is Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, would set another “first” in leadership history: by becoming the first openly gay leader of the California Legislature (or, we’re still checking, any legislative body in the nation). T Kincaid BTB
I do not know anything about Perez. He is listed as a D. . .but when more elected representatives start taking up GLBT issues without fear, both straight and gay reps, maybe more legislators R’s, I’s and D’s will step up also.
When Massachusetts legalized marriage, did you see an exodus of lifelong, monogamous couples running from Florida and California to the Promised Land of the Northeast to finally affirm the sacred vows they’d already taken between themselves and God? Um. . .no.
When the Lutheran and Episcopal and UCC churches welcomed gays into their flock, did you see faithful gays who wanted a community to support their relationship with God break down the doors to finally, finally be allowed in? Um. . .that’s another big no.
Do you think that when gays get what they claim they want, they don’t really want it? Slaves took the underground railroad to non-slave states. When women got the right to vote, they voted. When blacks got the right to drink at all-white fountains, they took a drink. When gays got the right to marry in some states, well, life went on pretty much as usual.
We need leadership that actually wants the rights we’re supposedly fighting for.
I like Seantor Savino http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ0IgECXE18
I have not had the time to read all the comments posted here (because like most conservatives, even gay ones, I have a responsibility to my employer to be productive), so if my point here is redundant, I apologize.
It seems to me that the level of disgust and disdain that “pro-family, Bible-clutching ” conservatives have toward gays is probably because all they see of us is the silliness that is on display at pride festivals and the froo-froo misrepresentations (or the militant blood-throwing protesters at Catholic churches) in the media. Not very many down-home conservatives have known a gay person in real life who displays their own kind of patriotism, civility, and at least something of a normal life.
If the image of gays could change such that people would see us as productive and responsible members of society, rather than the stereotypical limp-wristed Dorothy wannabes, the in-your-face activists, or the Prop 8 protesters who threaten ordinary citizens with violent reprisal, we might have a much better chance of winning their acceptance — cautious as it may be at first.
But it seems clear we can’t count on our own to change the image. Stonewall had its benefits and was good for its day, but today’s gay activists out-Stonewall Stonewall.
Like my well-meaning rights or activist groups, they usually end up becoming hijacked by the radical left wing. This is the case nearly every time for every cause: women’s rights, child adcovcacy rights, environmentalism, animal rights. No matter what the cause, the cry is usually for Big Government to solve the problem. But it’s more than that. There is a level handed attempt by radicals to infiltrate groups. Sadly, once this left wing cancer has infected its host the original agenda is set aside if not forgotten altogether in order to purpetuate the marxist ideal. Gay rights organizations are no different. They are knee-jerk antiAmerican, europhile, that adhere to EVERY left wing tenent. The issue of gun control is especially strange from gay rights groups. Why would people who perportedly support rights want to disarm a group of people they claim are disproportionately targeted by violence? I don’t see how left wing agendas can benefit the gay rights movement. And if I hear one more gay American defend Hugo Chavez……
I agree with the article. Gay leadership has not been willing to play the game of politics by talking effectively with Republicans. If you want power, you have learn how to play with others, even if you don’t like them. In order to win, you have to at least be in the game.
I know many gays don’t like to hear this, but the truth is George W. Bush, Jr. actually was supportive of gay rights during his first campaign. There are even tapes of him speaking to his advisors refusing to marginalize homosexuals. These tapes were played on CNN, but when the dimwits there realized they actually made Bush look good, they yanked them! Bush appointed two openly gay ambassadors, and Powell swore them in with their same-sex partners by their sides. Bush appointed a gay liaison for the White House. All this was done during his first term. So what happened? The blame is on both sides, but I believe the gay Left is even more to blame.
Instead of reaching for the olive branch Bush was holding out to gays, the gay leadership scoffed at him merely because he’s a Republican. Gay rights groups refuse to play with Repubilcans even if the Republican is supportive of gay rights. This goes to show you just how far left the gay leadership has become. This benefits no one.
Of course politicians are concerned with one thing: getting elected. So when Bush’s attempt to reach out to gays was tossed aside, he had no choice but to go after the far more lucrative religious right vote. At least the religious right knows how to play the game. Perhaps gays can learn from them.
Whether we are Democrats or Republicans, liberal or conservative, we can agree on one thing: The current strategy to provide the gay community with legal rights for relationships has FAILED. It is a flawed strategy, that has resulted in 0 wins, and 31 losses. Even the states which currently recognize gay marriage have not done so through the ballot box, and therefore will always be in danger of being revoked.
As for “gay leaders,” round up some straight people and ask them to name one. If they can’t, then we’ve failed at that too. Plenty of white people can name black leaders, but most GAYS can’t name gay leaders, let alone the rest of America.
The problem in my opinion, is that this issue has been hijacked by ultra-liberal organizations that serve as lapdogs for liberal politicians who talk a good game, but never deliver. It’s time for a change. It’s not working.
We fail in Maine, and activists call them bigots. We fail in California, and activists blame the Mormons – but ignore the huge minority turnout which is virulently anti-gay marriage. This is not a Democrat/Republican problem, and so it does not require a strictly Democrat or strictly Republican solution. This is a cultural issue. Until we address that, we’ll continue to fail.
Over at Gateway Pundit, they’ve compiled a list of books the gay rights organization GLSEN has demanded be made available in public schools. A lot of it is explicitly pornographic and some of it meets the definition of child pron.
(I’d put up a link, but the spam detector won’t let me.)
If the movement leadership sees nothing wrong with stocking po’nography in school libraries, the leadership needs to be changed.
When the current gay leadership says “We want gay marriage” what they mean is “We want to undermine traditional marriage and replace it with sexual liberation for all with extremely blurry age limits.” And everyone knows it. Voters have caught on to the game.
I truly believe that the one huge factor that gay liberals must start to understand is that the Democrat Party, for all of its lipservice to the gay community, really has no interest in giving the gay community what it wants.
Their main concern is a massive Leftist agenda that includes creating a government so large that it will swallow everything in its path…including the gay community; advancing socialism and communism is the main concern–not concern for gays.
So, if the gay community wants to continue in the misguided belief that selling away all of their other freedoms for the sake of a marriage license is the way to go–then by all means be my guest. But, I don’t want to hear the complaining in the future when the government is confiscating 60% of all of your earnings to re-distibute it to someone else.
That’s not to say Republicans don’t fail to uphold fiscal conservatism–but, until you understand that the Democrat Party is controlled by a massive entity whose primary purpose is growing government, selling away America’s sovereignty, and sticking there noses into what used to be our free private lives–then the gays are whistling in the wind in the Democrat Party too.
I saw that, V! Unfortunately, the liberals who control the “mainstream” media do not think that the federal government pushing kiddie porn in schools is newsworthy.
off topic but would you care to comment anyway:
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/12/breaking_and_ex.php
No, the leadership needs to be run out of town on a rail or “renditioned” somewhere.
Maybe we can convince them that Brad Davis is waiting for them in Turkey?
I live Tammy Bruce’s analysis of the Gay Left in “The Death of Right and Wrong”.
Why can’t we just let kids be kids?