Why Straight People Should Care about Gay Rights

One thing that's become increasingly clear to me over the last four years in politics is that on the progressive side, we're really all in this together.  We either hang together, or hang separately.  To be more granular, Howard Dean does not exist without the gay community.  Howard Dean's first slug of money - before the internet - came from the gay community.  People powered politics means all the people.

And women, well, I am really frustrated at the lack of representation of women within the leadership or pundit class of the Democratic Party.  That failure leads directly to under-registering single women, who are the largest Democratic leaning unregistered voting bloc.  It's different within different parts of the party and progressive movement, but we also have a real race and gender problem on our hands, and this has negative strategic consequences.  How we live our lives, and how we organize our movement, is directly tied to our values and what our governance model will be capable of.

That's why, unrelated as it may seem to MyDD's focus, I'm pointing to this blog post by Terrence Heath on LifeBEAT, which is the music industry's charitable organization dedicated to raising awareness about AIDS and HIV among youth.  LifeBEAT is having a concert and is featuring two reggae artists who have advocated for murder and violence against gays and lesbians.  Right now, there is a plague of violence against gays in Jamaica because of the AIDS epidemic there.  Complicity on the part of our music industry with a violently anti-gay agenda is a real failure of liberals within the music industry.

This is not ok.  What's going on in Jamaica sounds very much like what happened in the 1980s in America, with discrimination against gays as the norm turning into violent fear.  We are still living with those consequences today, in the form of the Bush administration, that uses this fear to drive us further apart from one another.

As progressives, we do not control any branch of government, but we do have control over our own actions and what we sanction in our own lives and our own projects.  It is in choices like the one that LifeBEAT is making that measure our moral strength and how willing we are to stand up for our values.  It was not, for instance, the administration that made dissent after 9/11 unpatriotic.  It was the complicity of all of us, including Democratic party leaders and people like Andrew Sullivan and Peter Beinart, who did so by remaining silent and/or joining in the jeering and fear-mongering.

Dissent is now patriotic again, but that's only because of the collective choice of millions of people to stand up and say that we will not live in a country governed by fear.  The people in America really are sovereign, and when we want something, we can get it.  But that means that as sovereign as we can be, we must want that freedom, or we will be dominated by small and petty men.  

Each of us has that choice, in our personal lives, like the organizers of this concert.  Do we go along with the existing power structure, and stay silent and profit?  Or do we make the hard decision and repudiate those who repudiate our values?  It's not as simple as it may seem.  LifeBEAT, which must make this choice and which has a board of influential and socially conscience individuals, has so far failed.  And that failure, just like the freedom we achieve by speaking out, belongs to all of us.  And if you know someone in the music industry who could put pressure on LifeBEAT to repudiate this agenda, you should do so.  

We in the progressive movement need to live our values.



Display:


Thanks Matt! (none / 0)

This is now getting coverage in gay media.

* PlanetOut: Black gays protest homophobe AIDS concert

  • New York Blade: Anti-gay rappers headline HIV fundraiser
  • Houston Voice: Anti-gay rappers headline HIV fundraiser
  • Southern Voice: Anti-gay rappers headline HIV fundraiser
  • Washington Blade: Anti-gay rappers headline HIV fundraiser


Terrance Heath
Washington, DC
http://www.republicoft.com
by TerranceDC on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 11:30:39 AM EST

Re: Why Straight People Should Care about Gay Righ (none / 0)

the music industry isn't liberal.  it's profit-driven.  And gay-bashing makes money.

But you're right to an extent.  We're all in this together, but it seems that, by extention, to be a Democrat you have to buy into everything that Democrats stand for which kinda eliminates the big tent idea.  There are a lot of Dems who aren't comfortable with gay marraige but are all for the rest of the platform.  I don't want them gone because they aren't lining up on literally every issue.


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 11:32:24 AM EST

Lucas (3.00 / 1)

First off, these rappers can make money without f'ing gay bashing.  People don't buy cd's and say "Man, I gotta have this, this rapper disses Gays.".  Come on.

Secondly, ENOUGH ENOUGH ENOUGH comparing gay rights to "literally every other issue".  You do not get it, do you?  How you can compare a 20 yr long relationship between 2 people, who CAN NOT VISIT EACH OTHER ON THEIR DEATH BEDS IN SOME CASES, to gun control, abortion, taxes, or every other Platform issue, is beyond me.  Please Lucas, take a step back and realize how fricking important this issue is.  Stand side by side with gay people, just like you would have with black people, with women, with Jews, and currently the Mexicans.


by JAmbro on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 11:54:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lucas (none / 0)

I'm not making excuses for anti-gay music.  I'm saying it sells.  Not like I'm happy about it, I'm just saying that we shouldn't expect the music industry to self-censor when this stuff makes money.

I'm not saying that gay rights=taxes or gay rights=gun control or whatever.  I'm saying that gay rights is NOT more important than all other issues combined, at least not for me.  It just isn't, I'm sorry.  I'll never stop fighting for equality and acceptance, but I'm not willing to sacrifice everything else over it.  If you don't like that, I fully understand and respect it, but gay rights at the expense of everything else doesn't work for me.


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 12:25:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lucas (3.00 / 1)

Lucas,

If I implied that you were making excuses for them, forgive me, I did not mean that.  Unless there is some sort of documentation that says people buy music "because" it is anti-gay, there is no forgivness for the record industry.  Yes, there are plenty of rap songs that have a line or two bashing gays, but I do not believe those lines are why their music sells.  They can sell records, even the same quantity, without that line or two.

I respect your opinion on not wanting to throw all your other issues away.  My point here, is that you should not have to.  If the Democrats stood as one, with respect to gay rights, I truly, in my heart of hearts, believe that people would respect that.  Even if they are wishy washy on gay rights, a united Dem caucus (hell, even a united "blue state" dem caucus), would signal us standing for something, no more of this trying to appeal to every damn constiuentcy.  Look how many people, even if they completely dislike Bush, respected him b/c he stood for his convictions, no matter how assinie they were.  


by JAmbro on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 12:42:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll disagree only with this for now: (none / 0)

"I'm just saying that we shouldn't expect the music industry to self-censor when this stuff makes money."

Um... yes we freaking should.  

Every American industry self-censors or self-restrains all the time.  It's a question of on what subjects, and how much.  The news media, for instance, censors itself to protect Jews.  When Levin makes a statement about prayer in schools, they don't say "Jewish Senator Levin opposes prayer."  They self-censored themselves to protect David Dreier from being outed.  The music industry could probably do an even better job of self-censoring violence against women.  Hollywood censors religion out of their products almost entirely.  

All kinds of things are informally off-limits in music, film, TV, newspapers.  Adding anti-gay incitement to violence to the list of subjects that will prevent your crap from being distributed is not that big a request.  If you think anti-black or anti-Jewish music wouldn't sell well in some markets, then you're kidding yourself.  Especially 20-30 years ago.  And yet there's none on the market, for damn good reason.

Anyone, even the music industry and even the petrochemical industry, can be asked to forego some profit for the purpose of BASIC social responsibility.  Even in this country, money is not an absolute monarch.  


by texas dem on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 03:37:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll disagree only with this for now: (none / 0)

also there is a difference between saying I am uncomfortable around gays and advocating killing them. No one should pass a law saying they can't say this, but we have a right to say this is offensive


by bruh21 on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 04:28:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll disagree only with this for now: (none / 0)

I'll just go ahead and refer you to the First Amendment, and then to the principles of capitalism.

SOMEone is going to press the cd if it'll sell money.  The big guys aren't gonna sit around and lose money on principle.  It'd be nice if it worked like that, but it doesn't.

Your example of the news not going out of its way to make semitism an issue is offpoint.  If it bumped the ratings, it'd get done.  I'll refer you to exhibit A: Fox News.  You think anyone dreamed of such bullshit "news" 30 or 40 years ago? No. It's false hope in collective decency that lets the crazies sneak up on us.


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 07:54:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Straight People Should Care (none / 0)

Given the nature of the event, I wonder if it's at least possible that the artists have repudiated their previous views, and that's why they've agreed to attend.

Alternately, they may have no idea what their managers have signed them up for, and will withdraw themselves once they find out.


by Adam B on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 11:34:23 AM EST

Re: Why Straight People Should Care (none / 0)

they haven't.


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 11:53:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Straight People Should Care about Gay Righ (none / 0)

Oops. I suppose I should have included links.

 


Terrance Heath
Washington, DC
http://www.republicoft.com
by TerranceDC on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 11:35:05 AM EST

Re: Why Straight People Should Care about Gay Righ (none / 0)

Also widely being covered on various gay sources online.


by bruh21 on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 11:42:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Straight People Should Care about Gay Righ (none / 0)

PS if you want to find some more prominent sources queerfilter.com is a good way to search


by bruh21 on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 11:42:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Straight People (3.00 / 1)

Life is a two way street. if you want someone to care about you, you have to care about someone. I believe this is the karmic element to all of this. I see this as continued struggle between various minority groups to realize that we can gain more together than we can being balkanized a part.

Jamaica is particularly bad when it comes to gays. Like Iran, it is still okay to kill us there.

This issue is a two way street- when I asked a gay org that I was involved in to denounce the denial of black voter rights in Ohio during 2004, I got a negative response that it wasn't their problem. When I talk to black straights about gay issues- they say the same thing. this attitude is hurting both communities on issues like AIDS and beyond. In many ways the civil rights movement has stalled in this country. I have to think that part of the reason why is that people no longer feel solidarity with one another as was exemplified by men like Martin Luther King and Harvey Milk (two men who to my knowledge didn't know each other- but who built coalitions for progressive change).


by bruh21 on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 11:47:22 AM EST

Re: Why Straight People Should Care about Gay Righ (none / 0)

This concert could be an easy win for the anti-bigot squad.


by Our Gal in Brooklyn on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 11:48:07 AM EST

Re: Why Straight People Should Care about Gay Righ (none / 0)


# Houston Voice:
# Southern Voice:
# Washington Blade:
# New York Blade:

Note that these are all part of a chain of papers, headed by the Southern Voice -- hence the identical headlines.

The best gay paper we get (in NYC) is the Gay City News, whose straight publisher also puts out several neighborhood papers in Manhattan. But the News has a gay staff and excellent legal analysis of developments like the recent abysmal New York court decision against marriage equality.


by mudduck on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 12:00:07 PM EST

Re: Why Straight People Should Care about Gay Righ (none / 0)

Also now getting picked up in African-American online media.

EURweb - Black Gay Bloggers Lauch Protest

I hold no illusions that we stand to make much headway with this -- gay people are a minority and black gay people are even more of a minority, plus we don't have support in our own communities -- but no one would hear about this, discuss it, or even care about if we didn't speak up.


Terrance Heath
Washington, DC
http://www.republicoft.com
by TerranceDC on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 12:52:07 PM EST

Re: Why Straight People Should Care about Gay Righ (none / 0)

Also now getting picked up in African-American online media.

EURweb - Black Gay Bloggers Lauch Protest

I hold no illusions that we stand to make much headway with this -- gay people are a minority and black gay people are even more of a minority, plus we don't have support in our own communities -- but no one would hear about this, discuss it, or even care about if we didn't speak up.


Terrance Heath
Washington, DC
http://www.republicoft.com
by TerranceDC on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 12:52:23 PM EST

Hear! Hear! (none / 0)

Your realization that gay issues are important is welcome.  And we do need more progressive women's voices, in the party leadership, pundit class and among the lefty blogs.  We need more attention to issues like the minimum wage and child care.  And we need to encourage and reward good women candidates.   There are some good women running this time around, but only Darcy Burner and Linda Stender (and the holdover Francine Busby) made the Netroots cut. And speaking of pundits and blogs, which one is your female front-pager?


by Mimikatz on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 12:56:01 PM EST

Re: Hear! Hear! (none / 0)

I don't know.  I really like Jane Hamsher, Christie Smith, McJoan, Jeralyn Merritt, and Lindsay Beyerstein.  I also enjoy a blogger called The Happy Feminist a great deal.

There are a bunch more I like, depending on the day.


by Matt Stoller on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 01:31:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Also (none / 0)

emptywheel, georgia10, and Laura Rozen.


by texas dem on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 03:44:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Straight People Should Care about Gay Righ (none / 0)

Matt,

You are like the ONLY "high profile" blogger that consistently shows supports for our rights and dignity.  Kos has lead the charge of us being "powerful, loud and single issue" and many so-called progressives and liberals still quietly blame us for every electoral defeat.

In fact, at our caucus at YearlyKos one guy, who was obviously straight judging by his comment said in a somewhat frustrated tone:  "What about fighting for universal health care, wouldn't that deal with a major issue that marriage would provide with your lifestyle choice."  

It's amazing how someone can pack about 5 or 6 highly offensive and ignorant things into one sentence.  

For someone as flaming and limp-wristed as Markos he sure is quick to put the focus on gay people as a single-issue wrecking ball for the Progressive Movement.  

With a movement like that I'd rather belong to the Radical Right.  At least I'd get paid a hell of a lot more...


by dayspring on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 01:00:22 PM EST

Re: Why Straight People Should Care about Gay Righ (none / 0)

Thanks for the comment.  Please lay off the personal attacks on Markos, he is a friend and a key driver of our movement.  Disagreement over strategic means is not grounds for personal attacks, and Markos has made a great deal of space for all parts of the movement through opening up his blog for dissenting opinion.

Anyway, I think the dysfunction in our movement is the result of a lot of historically fractured groups and a failed leadership class.  In the gay rights arena, a lot of this has to do with the larger gay rights groups (like HRC), who have gotten fat, happy and slow.  They do not provide either the carrot or the stick to politicians, and they do not educate as to why strong gay rights protection is key to a progressive America.  It's very clear that closely behind gay bigotry is racism, antisemitism and chauvinism, but the alliances between the African-American, immigrant, Jewish, and feminist communities have been slow in coming.

For instance, HRC's endorsement of Lieberman is a real failure on multiple levels.  It's a failure because as far as I know the membership wasn't included in the decision, this was a top-down staff decision.  It's a failure because Ned is better on gay rights than Lieberman.  And it's a failure because HRC could have used this as 'a teachable' moment' on why gay rights are important, but did not.

Anyway, I hope we can hold everyone accountable for their moral choices.  That's what the progressive movement is about.


by Matt Stoller on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 01:29:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Straight People Should Care about Gay Righ (none / 0)

If you want to read an account of where the gay movement, I feel, should go based on where it has been - then read the book about Harvey Milk, a personal hero of mine, called Mayor of Castro (believe that's the title). He built coalitions w/ the Chinese, with blacks, with unions, etc. I don't understand he could do this way back in the 70s, or how MLK could have Rustard on his team, and yet, today, this is so alien to people.


by bruh21 on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 01:51:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Straight People Should Care about Gay Righ (none / 0)

Hey Matt,

I do apologize for my personal attacks on Markos.  It was unwarranted.  I do get heated and sometimes I type before I think.  

It's just tough, you know, when the Right pins you for destroying families and preying on children and the Left blames you for losing elections and being "toxic" in the public discourse.  

That said, I totally think the HRC is a dysfunctional organization that's like a Log Cabin Republican-lite org.  I've always said HRC + DLC = GOP.

I'm a big supporter of Ned Lamont and of you.  You're like one of the few straight bloggers out there who actually sticks up for us when everyone else would rather we just go away or disappear.

Thanks for fighting the good fight.  :)


by dayspring on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 05:55:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's an ugly personal attack, (none / 0)

and, Markos has not singled out the gay movement in anything near the way he has gone after NARAL etc.

Ironically enough, like the Dean campaign, universal health care got a strong early push from gay people during the AIDS crisis.  Watching a bunch of young men who'd been cast out by their families die of an expensive, chronic disease convinced a lot of gay people back in Reagan days that "You're On Your Own"  is an insane approach to healthcare.  Cause man, there were a lot of boys that were really, really on-their-own.  

The drive for universal health care must predate that, but I do have vague knowledge that it got a little more momentum behind it coming out of the AIDS era.  so screw that straight guy, he got it all wrong.  On the other hand, Matt is right; HRC has lost its way, and I bet it would be nowhere now if a health care fight came up.  

Really what happened is the gay orgs started cultivating corporations rather than liberal government.  Which means the orgs are really well funded and we can pay for HUGE legal campaigns, and throw lavish pride parades... but the orgs have to stay silent on all kinds of tangentially related progressive issues, like universal health care (which yes, would make marriage-tied health insurance obsolete).


by texas dem on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 03:53:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One more thing (none / 0)

In terms of attracting women to the Democratic Party, while I am not a great fan of Hillary Clinton, one has to consider the cumulative effect of constant Hillary-bashing in the lefty blogs, in light of her great popularity among single women:

I've tabulated some evidence from the 2004 National Election Study. Women, but not men, rated Clinton higher than they did Kerry on a "thermometer" scale where 0 equals very cool feelings and 100 equals extreme warmth. The average for Clinton was 59, versus 54 for Kerry. Men rated both between 50 and 51. So Carville and Penn seem correct here. On the other hand, Clinton's boost among married women was no larger than her boost among married men, and much smaller than among single women. Married women rated Clinton 53 and Kerry 50, compared with 48 and 46 for married men and 66 and 59 for single women. Among Republican women, there was no boost, and she was barely any more popular than among Republican men. The average score for Clinton was 31, compared with 32 for Kerry. The figures for Democratic women were 80 and 73; for Republican men, 28 and 29. Finally, Clinton averaged 63 among independent women, while Kerry averaged just 55. Among independent men, on the other hand, she averaged 52 to Kerry's 54.

Just a thought.


by Mimikatz on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 01:29:13 PM EST

Re: One more thing (none / 0)

Interesting.


by Matt Stoller on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 01:29:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gay Rights and AIDS (none / 0)

Gay rights are not related to AIDS activism.  I am simply unclear as to why you are putting them together.

AIDS is a disease.  It attacks people due to a virus, not a lifestyle.

Why, in a post about "gay rights" are you talking about AIDS?


by dataguy on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 01:40:10 PM EST

Um (none / 0)

AIDS activists are generally those who have AIDS, or have watched someone they love die of AIDS.  An overwhelming majority of gay men over the age of 35 fall into one of those two categories, mostly the second one.  Almost all gay men over 35 are therefore, in thought if not in action, AIDS activists.  Gay people, as a general rule, care about AIDS, due to their own personal experience.


by texas dem on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 05:32:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Promulgating stereotypes and slurs (none / 0)

Some gays have AIDS.  Some don't.

Some straights have AIDS.  Many don't.

But, this entire diary is about equating GAYS with PEOPLE WITH AIDS.

Sounds extremely ANTI-GAY to me.

I always thought that gays are trying to get people to NOT make the equation

Gay = PWA

You are saying that we should conclude that only gays care about AIDS?

I think that's a bad idea.


by dataguy on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 08:58:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You aren't reasoning clearly. (none / 0)

A = gay men over age 35
B = people who care about AIDS

I said most A are B.  I very clearly did not say that most B are A.  

This is in reference to your sentence "You are saying that we should conclude that only gays care about AIDS?"  No, smart guy, I'm not.  That would be "all B are A."  I said nothing of the kind.

I also didn't say most A have AIDS.  I said most A have seen someone they know die of AIDS.  I think that's true.  Raise it to gay men over 45 and I promise you it's true.

I was also very explicit that PWA are only one component of the group "AIDS activists."  You say that "this entire diary is about equating GAYS with PEOPLE WITH AIDS."  No.  If anything, the diary conflates GAYS with AIDS ACTIVISTS.  I made a direct argument that AIDS ACTIVISTS and PEOPLE WITH AIDS were not equivalent groups.  Specifically, I said PWA was a subset of AIDS activists.  That seems to have slipped right past you.  

========

Now, Stoller may have implied in his post that most B are A, which is I think your larger theme in these comments.  The thrust of my reply to your comment was that A is a very large group of people, and yes, a healthy fraction of group B.  To become more specific, I think between 30 and 60% of group B is drawn from members of group A.  Which, in conclusion, makes it completely nonsensical for group B to associate with "artists" who want to murder anyone in group A.  


by texas dem on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 06:05:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Thanks, Matt for this post... it was a really exciting headline to see on MyDD... unfortunately, I was a little disappointed to read that your major argument for why straight people should stand with gay people is because "Howard Dean's first slug of money came from the gay community."

Not to nit-pick, but there are a few other, possibly more important (as much as everyone on this site is in love with Howard), reasons as well why straights should care about gay rights... maybe when I have time I'll diary about them this weekend or something...

eh, another disappointing post.


by njfellow on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 03:38:36 PM EST

Re: (none / 0)

The moral argument is also in my post.  I want to draw a line between the moral good and the strategic good.


by Matt Stoller on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 03:46:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Yeah, and I appreciate where you're going with it, sincerely, but I think there are also other strategic reasons (particularly I'm thinking about the privacy/slippery-slope arguments--can get into more detail later when I really have time) that are more important than "gays are good funders"...

but we obviously fundamentally agree here, my point was that the post was disappointing after reading the headline... would like to see something that fits better under such a great headline


by njfellow on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 08:30:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Everyone's a critic, I guess. (none / 0)

I think this is a good post.


by texas dem on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 03:57:31 PM EST

Not a separate issue (none / 0)

As a lesbian (and a female blogger) thanks for this post. To me, gay rights isn't a separate, distinct issue at all. I see it as one element of the larger issue of equal rights for all under civil law. If we let the right-wingers get away with making it a separate issue, we're falling right into their framing trap.

On the other hand, if we keep repeating that it's about equal rights under the law, we have a better chance of persuading moderates that they can't see themselves as supporters of equal rights if they don't support them for everyone, including GLBT folks.

We need to integrate gay rights into a larger context of civil and human rights rather than let the right-wingers create a little corner where discrimination is OK because, you know, it's only queers...

Visit my blog (and DFNM's):
http://www.DemocracyForNewMexico.com


Visit my blog Democracy for New Mexico
by barbwire on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 04:27:22 PM EST

Re: Not a separate issue (none / 0)

agree that this is about equal protection under the law, but don't k now if you will convince any bigot under that argument b/c they dont see it as an equality issue. ie, how can it be an equality issue if they refuse to aknowledge we have a right to be what we are?


by bruh21 on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 04:31:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not a separate issue (none / 0)

You can't convince bigots to be non-bigotted with a political argument.  That is something that comes with time and pop culture.  

You can convince them that their rights are more threatened by corporate monstrous giants than gay neighbors.


by Matt Stoller on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 05:02:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not a separate issue (3.00 / 1)

To do what you wrote probably requires a) that progressives not sell us out on this issue when they think there are other 'more' important issues and b) people can get passed their bigotry long enough to balance as you  describe. The irony of most of the gay debate is that its is sick how much straights focus in own my sexuality- I hope things will change, but I haven't seen much indication of this on the left. There is a long history of gays being sold downt he river by progressives. Again, I encourage you to read Mayor of Castro Street if you haven't ever read it. It's fascinating because the dynanimics we see now- really aren't all that new. In some ways, we are frozen with the same debates as before on this subject. Queer conservatives trying to keep quiet b/c they identify with Republicans on everything else except sexuality or trying to appear 'normal'. Queers ignoring their own interests for those of the progressives. Progressives trying to shush us for fear the public doesn't want us around. These all played out. The difference was that he was able to form a coalition by saying I scratch your back, if you scratch mine.


by bruh21 on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 05:15:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not a separate issue (none / 0)

ps - if you want to see the reasons why this issue will be a problem fot he near future check here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/11/ 112844/947

or for that matter, check out the lefts notable silence on the killing of gays in Iran and throughout te middle east b/c it doesnt fit into t heir arguments agaisnt bush


by bruh21 on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 05:44:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not a separate issue (none / 0)

I don't think we'll convince many bigots, regardless, at least not quickly. But I believe there are large numbers of people who view themselves as fair minded despite the fact they feel uncomfortable or worse with the gay issue and gay people generally. Their fears and/or confusion are reinforced consistently by conservative framing and propanda. They rarely hear the opposing arguments or alternate framings because so many Dems in the spotlight refuse to talk honestly or effectively or, even, at all, about this issue.

I think we have a good chance of swaying a significant number of these folks if they keep hearing that equal rights must, by necessity, include equal rights for GLBT citizens. These are the sorts of people who have a self image as unbigoted, open and non-narrowminded, yet they continue to be narrowminded about gay issues. I really believe we can change their minds and, in fact, I have done so with a few people I've met via local Democratic politics.


Visit my blog Democracy for New Mexico
by barbwire on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 05:13:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not a separate issue (none / 0)

At the fear of sounding contradictory to what I just wrote to Stoller, I would say you capture what I think needs to happen to start changing the debate. A huge 5 percent, as I understand it, of the voters actually think this is important. A small 95 percent could care less. The only way to shift the discussion (and this is where what I am saying isn't contradictory) is in the nature of leadership on these issues. The reason why the argument isn't framed the way you described is that the leadership is afraid of the 'values' voters. They think by values these people mean 'gay' rights. I think by values they mean lacking the courage of one's own convictions. If you want to reshape the debate toward where Stoller thinks the argument can be won- I believe the effort has to grow out of what you suggest.


by bruh21 on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 05:19:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not a separate issue (3.00 / 1)

PS

On the misdirection by the right- this is very true. They continue to claim, that gay marriage, for example- it's legalization will mean churches will have to perform gay weddings which isn't at all what a change in law will do. You have pastors saying this. But, you also have the left buying into the arguments of the right. Not that it is representative, but I saw quite a few diaries over at Daily Kos in which progressives were more than willing to sell us down the river to carry favor with voters. They were also more than willing to believe the worse stereotypes about gays, or to accept the weakest arguments to justify the courts decision in NY. On the bright side, Dean did come out to say that this decision was bigotted. Meanwhile HRC continues to avoid the topic which really pisses me off because we are a key constituency here in NY that she and others regularly slap in the face. They won't to make this about special rights when its about being treated like everyone else- and by they I include folks like Hillary.


by bruh21 on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 05:23:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not a separate issue (none / 0)

Thanks for your excellent points.

I also think that we could puncture the fear and loathing barrier with a number of ordinary people if we started responding with common sense, explanatory answers. As you said, even many Dems are in the dark and prone to ignorance on the facts.

When the right starts the frame about marriage being a sacred institution of the church we could ask why straight couples are allowed to marry before a justice of the peace, with no religious connections whatsoever. If they can avail themselves of a purely civil law contract, shouldn't we?


Visit my blog Democracy for New Mexico
by barbwire on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 06:42:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Straight People Should Care about Gay Righ (none / 0)

One way to get women involved would be to do what we do in MN politics, we wrote into the State DFL constitution that women are to be represented in equal number to men.  Half of all delegate slots to any convention are set aside for women.  It was a radical change, but overall, it was positive.


Enough already...
by pjv on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 05:07:56 PM EST

Re: Why Straight People Should Care about Gay Righ (none / 0)

We do need to "live our values," but we shouldn't just do this out of the kindness of our hearts!

There is something MAJOR going on this year, in Wisconsin in particular.  The Republican tactic of using anti-gay amendments is starting to backfire.  The Wisconsin campaign against the amendment is already running TV ads, a recent poll showed the race dead even, and Fair Wsiconsin has the largest grassroots operation in the state, with someone coordinating volunteer GOTV work in all 72 counties.

This is NOT what the Republicans bargained for when they brought this thing forward.  In fact, it's the exact opposite.  Fair Wisconsin is going to bring out thousands of people to the polls who wouldn't have been there otherwise, and they're going to be voting on a progressive issue.  This is another reason why straight people should care about gay rights!


by spirograph on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 11:01:15 AM EST

Re: Why Straight People Should Care about Gay Righ (none / 0)

Thank you Matt for that great piece! The GOP smear campaigns are just heating up. Take a listen to this radio ad run against Rep. Brad Miller in North Carolina, accusing him of promoting "one big fiesta for illegal aliens and homosexuals".

Instilling fear is the most powerful campaign tactic. We should all know better.  


People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people - V is For Vendetta
by BlueCheese on Wed Aug 02, 2006 at 04:28:59 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.