Okay for before anyone jumps on me for not supporting gay marriage, I am totally in favor of gay marriage, civil unions and any way we can allow people who have a particular sexual preference the rights people with different genital types have.
Having written this disclaimer, I do have a problem with inserting the gay marriage as an election issue, particularly where one of the possible winners has the potential to turn our nation into a fascist state. Unfortunately, the trend looks like it is veering in the same direction. Gay marriage propenents want to make their statement and burden the candidates with needing to answer to this constituency. The problem with this tendency is that many in this country are dead set against a lifestyle that many except with no problem; by insisting that gay marriage is on the platform, we risk losing another election and hoping and praying for another four years that concentration camps do not become a housing mandate.
To be sure this is not just a gay issue. The left tends to eat their young, while the right unites at church sponsored bake sales and has no problem winning election after election. As much as you and I want people of any sexual orientation to have rights equal to everyone else's, does anyone think that gay marriage stands a chance under a church driven, (not gay) cowboy worshipping, gun-loving regime?
This is not an attack on gays; all of us on the left need to realize that our little pet projects will have a much better chance under a more sympathetic pairing of the legislature and the executive branch. Once we elect the people who will give our causes an opportunity, then we can make our demands heard. Even with the right in disarray, they still have one or two issues that unites them at the polls.
Let's make the next two national elections about putting more reasonable officials in power, rather than another six year bitch fest about how bad our situation has become.
6 comments:
Ok...I've gotta throw in my two bits on this one. Disclosures - I'm a walking, talking, cocksucking embodiment of white male privilege. I'm a well educated, gainfully employed, progressive (with a suspicious affection for managed free markets). Queer is the only minority story I'm ever going to lay any claim to, & I don't think it's quite the same thing as being a person of color, female, or a para, because I always have the option (a really shitty option...but an option none-the-less) of fading into the background & hiding.
I think it's worthy to consider all the tactical angles that might be useful in putting someone besides a biblethumping, right wing freakshow in some of our elected positions. I'm not going to beat up my allies by claiming they're gaybashing by giving politicians a pass on the gay marriage issue. In fact, I don't really support gay marriage. I think it represents a sell out of the revolutionary potential of nontraditional relationships. It all spins out in complicated ways. But I do have a couple of questions.
The argument (as I understand it) is that because so many people are united in their opposition to gay marriage, we shouldn't ask that our progressive candidates take a stand on the topic. The problem is that the same story can be advanced for a women's choice or affirmative action, & I wonder if we'd be as comfortable excluding those items because there might be some kind of tactical advantage. My expectation is that the left would have very little patience for a candidate who didn't want to take a position on birth control or a woman's fundamental right to control her body just because it might piss someone off.
I think the answer for a savvy candidate is to remove the "marriage" flash point by offering a comprehensive anti discrimination suite of proposed legislation on gay issues & a federal civil unions proposal that would include gays, extended families, an others who're trying to raise families & carve space but don't fit the classic nuclear model.
I have to tell you. If a candidate isn't willing to say that gays should be protected from discrimination under the law, & that we need to figure out the best way to provide fairness for gay couples on issues of inheritance, life insurance, healthcare & so forth. They wouldn't get my vote, or my money, or any of the things that candidates are really in need of. Maybe I'm eating my young. But the left has to be the left or they're not really any different from the right.
I think there are things that you have to stand up on. I won't require that they use the "M" word, but I do require that they take a stand. If that means that we're going to be the "loyal opposition" while the right continues to fuck over our country, that's a bitter pill that I'll just have to swallow. I don't even think the question would be on the table if the topic were race or gender related.
I know this is tricky territory. I will concede that this discussion would not be on the table if it involved color or gender. But I am not sure that mdh understands the crux of the argument.
As I remember the situation, gays were defiantly getting married as a way of stressing their point as the election year 2004 began. This defiance is what I see as turning point in the election, not the only one, but one that made a difference. Since the issue was on the table, all progressive candidates had to stand behind it, end of question. Now with everything else that is happened, any politician who brings up the topic is gonna get a "Yeah, right. Man look how long my toenails have grown since I last cut them.". Now, the issue stands much less of chance then it did in 2004.
The reality is that though gender and race issues still suck in many cases, in the mind of the American public they have been resolved to some degree. Actually, I am pleased that I see more and more whites address the topic; much of the change that government (finally) mandated is trickling through society, We have a long way to go, but progress is progress. This should remind us that social progress takes years. Declaring war on the establishment by openly marrying your gay partner is not going to convince the public that you should have the right to. In fact, working through the system, being seen as working with that system by making compromises and supporting other issues adds legitmacy that eventually will help the acceptance of gay marriage.
The other side of my post deals with picking our battles and in many ways has nothing to do with lifestyle choice. As much I would love to support a Green Party candidate, the reality is that he or she is not going to get elected under the present mindset. Yeah, the Democrats suck, but if we elect them we have a much better chance to put our issues on the table. As much as Bill Clinton compromised to the other side, he did much more than any Republican president would do. In my mind, we would not still be arguing about whether global warming if the election had not been stolen in 2000. The Dems may suck, but I prefer them over fascism, a state of being that you have admitted to as a possibility in other posts. I would love to see proportianl voting a la European countries, but what I want and reality are two different things. Because of many reasons, we on the left are in a poor bargaining position. We especially cannot afford to lose another election. Unfortunately, the Dems have become the fallback party for every cause, burdening a candidate with needing to defend them all, a lose-lose situation; under these circumstances none of us win.
I see this election as critical to our very survival. This sounds dramatic, but when you become a prisoner for your expressing your views, will you expect that the right to marry anyone no matter his/her agenda will even be a thought?
A couple of things. First, I think the middle east & security & the war on terror were very clearly on the table during our last election. In fact, I think that’s why the republicans won. They talked about terrorism (that’s code for US involvement in the middle east) & how we needed to be tough...”this is war” after all. I’ll admit that there are, needs-must, reasons to be tactical & pick your battles.
However, I think it’s a mistake to presume that race/gender are settled issues. The story works two ways. The reason that we’ve made progress on race (& boy do we have a long way to go) isn’t a result of black americans sitting quietly on the sidelines & remaining hopeful that elected representative would do the right thing. It involved marches & violence & court decisions. I don’t know if it’s reasonable to expect people who’ve spent their lives taking shit from small minded bigots to remain quiet for the good of the party on issues that are so obvious that it beggars the imagination.
Also, I don’t think that gender is going to be a settled issue. I believe that there will be a SIGNIFICANT roll back of Roe over the next couple of years. I’ll tell you what. I won’t call out representatives on gay issues as long as women aren’t going to demand that candidates embrace a pro-choice position. Is that fair? If not, then I need someone to explain why gay progressives are supposed to fall on their swords... but it’s different on other topics. Abortion isn’t anything close to a settle issue in this country.
As for the question of being a prisoner vs. speaking the truth...the answer is yes. I'd rather be a prisoner than say it's OK to oppress people...to remain mute on what I believe to be the last acceptable form of bigotry. I'll ask you the same thing. If the choice for you is advocating a return to Jim Crow in order to get someone elected what are you going to choose? I'm not trying to flame on this one so I'll step back & make it more blanced. Advocating a ban on interracial realationships? That's the sacrifice that you're asking of queer progressives. So my question is, if the shoe were on the other foot, what would you be willing to give up?
Civil rights are civil rights. It's not a grey area.
The same arguement (to keep quiet until timing is better) has been used for slavery, voting rights, desegragation, interracial marriage and just about everything that has made society the slightest bit more fair since the founding of this country.
I wonder if sitting quietly on the sidelines hoping for a better environment is what the germans who were against Hitler did? Biting your tongue till the environment is improved doesn't help because it is those who will scream out about injustce that change the environment- not those who passively wait for improvement. Squeaky wheel gets the political platform, as we have seen from the screaming meemies on the far right.
I guess this is where many of us will differ. I just think we need a change of strategy. Sticking to our guns and thinking it's still its 1968 gets us nowhere. The right changed their stategy in the 1980s and have made irrefutable gains.
I am not for sitting on the sidelines and electing an official who we hope will do the right thing when elected. I am looking for us to elect someone who says enough of the right things to gain office, without pissing off enough of his own party to kill his chances.
I also think it is unfair for gays to expect that their issue should be at the top of the list. The civil rights people of color gained came at the cost of much time and many lives. For the issue of gay marriage, which I do support, to win that community must convince many, including many in the black community (I am not sure about other minority groups) that possibly losing another election is worth their support.
Put another way, while I agree with gay marriage I will not march in the streets to support it. Other issues, including better schools for all, a more secure domestic sphere and a no-nonsense approach to repairing our it-may-too-late-to-it-but-I-will-not give-up environment will gain my money and time before the unresolved , let's figure out the details later issue of gay marriage. I think gays need to reach out to everyone and offer their assistance to other groups before they should expect that supporting their undefined cause becomes a deal-breaker on the democratic platform.
This does not mean I would support a candidate who came out against same-gender marriage just to gain votes. I am hoping we can get one who can appease this interest group and make them understand that his/her election will be more in its favor than electing someone who will not only deny these rights, but go in the opposite direction.
To answer mdh directly:
security and terrorism was on the table, but many who voted against the Dems specifically brought up the marriage issue.
I am not expecting the gay community to relent on marriage, but there has to be way it can communicate its need without compromising the support of the only party that will reasonably address it. Though I do not have specific examples, I am certain blacks and black politicians have compromised for the greater good.
Post a Comment