Wayne Besen - Author, Activist, Columnist, Public Speaker

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Alan Van Capelle, head of the Empire State Pride Agenda blasted Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's position on same-sex marriage and urged the GLBT Community to stop giving money to her re-election campaign.

In a memorandum to board members, Van Capelle said that Clinton was "a complete disappointment." In his memo, which was reported on Tuesday on the Politicker Web site of The New York Observer, Van Capelle said that he refused to "lend my name and sell tickets" to any fund-raiser sponsored by a gay group for Mrs. Clinton's re-election campaign. He said supporting such fund-raisers for Mrs. Clinton would "actually hurt" the gay and lesbian community. "

"It will send a message to other elected officials that you can be working against us during this critical time and not suffer a negative pushback from the gay community," he said. "We have become a community that throws money at politicians, and we demand nothing in return. And that's what we get: nothing. It's the wrong message to send."

This raises serious questions for the GLBT community. There is likely going to be no leading presidential candidate who supports marriage rights. So, do we support a candidate who offers half a loaf, or withhold support and sit on the sidelines?

I have to think about this question a bit more, because of the serious ramifications. I don't think there are any easy answers. I'd be curious to get my readers' thoughts.

8 Comments:

Gays aren't the only ones who have to be pragmatic when election time comes around. I think that the vast majority of voters are willing to pull the lever for the candidate that they agree with "most" of the time. Consider the 2000 election. Al Gore wasn't for gay marriage, but he would have been considerably better than what we have now. Idealistic gays who stayed home or voted for Ralph Nader actually helped elect Bush.

The bottom line is that any presidential candidate who publicly supports gay marriage will simply not get elected. If Hillary were to come out for gay marriage, her candidacy would be doomed. She would be another George McGovern. We need to change that fact by making our case to the public, and when we've done it successfully, the politicians will follow.
posted by Anonymous, at 2/23/2006 12:58 PM

I agree with you Chris. The fact that we would like to have the same rights as heterosexuals implies a great deal of education and exposure.

For the time being, the LGBTQ community may take a look to what is less dangerous (meaning, vote democrat, as bad as it may sound), so we can advance a little more in stead of going backwards.

Remember, Bill Clinton (I stand up and take off my hat) helped to advance our rights, for example, he brought to the table the idea of the gays in the Active service. He is very much for equal rights, and he was a President for all.

Lesson learned: Don't let one specific issue geopardize your hability to scrutinize and decide who are you going to vote force, or who wants to continue going backwards?
posted by Anonymous, at 2/23/2006 1:26 PM

Dont forget it was her husband who signed DOMA (Defense of marriage act). Hilary is falling into the trap of trying to suck up to the moderate right wing by sponsoring dumb bills like that flag burning ban. She will end up pleasing no one and be a loser. I dont think the Democratic party would be dumb enough to run her for president (maybe vice president) but then again maybe they are that dumb. Besides being a woman she's too hated in the heartland and in the south. I know we sometimes have to hold our noses, but 99% of the time, we're still better off voting democratic. As for donations, i think hilary will be just fine without the gay dollar; i have no intentions of giving her any dough.
Gary (NJ)
posted by Anonymous, at 2/23/2006 1:44 PM

Hillary Clinton is now moderating her public stance about the Dubai-corporate-acquistion-of-NY-ports deal. It's being suspected that Bill is exerting some pressure there.
posted by Anonymous, at 2/23/2006 1:45 PM

I hope to God we don't nominate Hillary. We will lose big and I just can't take another four years of republican rule.
posted by Anonymous, at 2/23/2006 2:12 PM

The LBGT community like the Black community continue to support Democrats without making any gains. The Democratic leadership in this country does not listen to the grass roots. We should withold our support and vote and let a Republican clean up after GW.
posted by Anonymous, at 2/23/2006 3:39 PM

ok, guys. Granted that she is not perfect. And I go more with the argument thatis better to try to nominate someone who is not in disadvantage because of gender or race... but aside from Edwars (who was a better btt that Kerry) who else can we turn for? Let's face it: The conservatives are strong because we have allowed it. If we were more pro-active and less apathic, our economy, foreign relations and now safety would be in better hands... no to mention our basic rights. History will look to our generation like a bunch of idiots, because we are allowing fear in every single front to win over common sense, that is how "ex-gays" ministries are growing, that is how GWB was elected for a second term, and that is why hate crimes are on the raise, while we continue fighting among ourselves.
posted by Anonymous, at 2/23/2006 3:46 PM

I've never given money to republicans. I've given money to democrats for years. I given money to local and national gay orgainizations for years. After years of getting little or nothing for my money from the democrats and the beltway gays I've changed my spending habits. I have increased my donations 50% to OutFront here in Minnesota. I have decreased my donations to the beltway gay groups by 50%. I have stopped my donations to the DNC. I would never give Hillary a penny or a vote. I am donating to Sabo because he isn't a republican-lite bigot like Hillary.

In the long run and the short-term money speaks louder than votes. I've stopped throwing my money away.
posted by Anonymous, at 2/23/2006 7:53 PM