Monday, October 25, 2010

Gays R Us

No, really, gays are us. No matter which stereotype one insists fits a group as disparate as mankind in general, it's impossible to separate it from one's own prejudices. If there's any appearance of unanimity, it may be that people tend to vote their own interests and support candidates that promise to advance those interests, but Gays are conservative, liberal, libertarian and any other blurry concepts we use to muddy the political waters. So when AP rattles our cage and asks us to worry that the dissatisfaction of gay Americans with the lack of progress the current administration has made with respect to protecting their equality will cause them not to vote at all or commit political seppuku by voting for Republicans, I have to wonder if they aren't trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy here or at least cashing in on the fear of jumping back out of the pan and into the fire.

"Some fear that gay voters angry over pace of gains might sit out election"
blares the headline. Some fear the Andromeda galaxy will smash into us any day now. That's a cheap ploy more worthy of Fox than AP, as is the use of quotes from a handful of individuals to stand in for the voice of a huge group that doesn't speak unanimously anyway -- but still, we all know there is frustration.

Will that frustration provoke people for whom DADT is a thorn in the side or who advocate the right to marry one of the same sex to choose candidates in the same main stream that opposed voting rights for women and minorities, the right to marry outside one's race, to get a room at The Breakers or a seat in the front of the bus? Perhaps one of those right wingers who blame every storm, every shift in tectonic plates on allowing gay people the right not to be stoned in the public square?

Gay people also care, I would presume, about the economic charade that collapsed the economy, the lawless and predatory markets, the wars and the erosion of rights that they were meant to justify. They care about government intrusion into our privacy, government control by corporate interests and all the other things we all, rightly or wrongly care about. They care about pulling the economy out of the nosedive the previous pilot put it into as much as any American. If they have an "agenda" as the bigots assert, it sure looks like it involves life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as much as anyone elses and the agenda of those selling the idea that they are different and dangerous certainly has to do with something completely different.

4 comments:

  1. Capt. Fogg,

    I wouldn't buy the notion that lgbt's are going to vote mostly Republican out of spite, either -- that makes no sense. But I was just reading a HuffPo article about DADT and the Obama Administration, and noticed that a fair amount of comments indicated a lack of enthusiasm for Obama's record on that issue. The genuine risk in 2010 is that a lot of people who would otherwise be giving lots of money to the Democrats aren't going to do that, and some of them seem inclined not to bother voting.

    Have long thought that the gay rights complex of issues is one area where something like a majority have come around to a decent view, so there's nowhere near as much risk for Democrats in supporting those issues as there used to be. The right-wingers will rave and act like the Day of Wrath is nigh, but they do that about every issue because, let's face it, they're nuts -- bloodthirsty, narrow-minded, stupid, frightened little people who oppose any advance from barbarism to civilization with the ferocity of a wounded, cornered animal. We should ignore the dumb bastards more often -- it's good for the soul and in some cases may actually be a net winner where voting is concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I want to point out that there is some precedent to back up the notion that gay voters might turn away from Obama over this issue. When Clinton was unable to make more progress on the same problem, quite a number of gay leaders turned bitterly against him, even though we all knew that it was not Clinton (who expended a lot of political capital on this issue) but congressional Republicans who prevented further action. Many of these gay leaders remained angry towards Clinton for the rest of his presidency over this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A heavy heart, I have. I can certainly understand the long simmering frustrations of the LGBT community ... being so close and yet so far away ... after decades of discrimination and humiliation. President Obama has taken the position that gay rights is a constitutional issue requiring a legislative solution. I disagree. Look at the last Senate vote on the repeal of DADT attached to the last defense appropriation bill. Uniformly, the Democrats voted for repeal while the Party of NO voted NO! From the beginning, this should have been a constitutional issue requiring a court solution. In retrospect, the DOJ should not have appealed the last court ruling.

    Still, why punish the Democrats! At least they tried; and if anyone is likely to repeal DADT, it certainly will not be the Republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I can't imagine being LGBT in today's world. It is better, but that isn't saying a lot is it? I voted Monday & I voted for that same tired, not very bright Democrat for the House, even though I really can't stand him. Why? Because the other guy was CRAZY!

    Let's just "pull a Bush" and DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE! I'll vote for THAT GUY! (or Gal!)

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.