You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
It is time the gay movement took the religious right's advice and created a gay agenda. The new Democratic Congress is about to triumphantly take the reins, offering a unique opportunity to pass legislation, but we must tread carefully to avoid repeating past mistakes.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton waltzed into Washington and advocated allowing openly gay patriots to serve in the military. While this was commendable, he moved too fast, too soon and the resulting brouhaha damaged his presidency and saddled the gay community with today's Don't Ask/Don't Tell fiasco.
One lesson from the past is that if gay issues are haphazardly introduced they can be radioactive and sidetrack the Democratic Party's broader agenda. If the Democrats are seen as kowtowing to a controversial special interest group the moment they are in the majority it may jeopardize their ability to reach mainstream Americans.
On the other side of the coin, the gay community has been a loyal constituency group and our basic rights should be protected as a matter of morality. The way to reconcile this ostensible conflict is for major gay political organizations to have an early strategic powwow with incoming House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
The gay leaders should offer to step back and make no demands for six months to let the Democrats establish a tangible record on bread and butter economic issues. The party must establish itself as one that represents all people and cares most about the concerns of average families.Once party leaders have built a reserve of political capital and are able to boast of bipartisan accomplishments they will have earned credentials with suburban families and can address gay rights without looking like they are pandering.
Democratic leaders should agree that for the GLBT community's six months of silence a major piece of legislation would be introduced in June. The most logical legislation would be the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would prohibit job discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, I think we should scrap ENDA in its current antiquated form and return to a broader bill that also bans discrimination in housing, credit and accommodations.
ENDA made more sense when there were several influential members of Congress who were opposed to employment discrimination, but balked at losing the ability to discriminate in housing. But the world has evolved and I suspect there are few members of Congress who now advocate situational discrimination. So, why not go for a more robust bill if there are enough votes to win?
It is crucial that GLBT leaders get a commitment from Pelosi and Reid to energetically push a gay rights bill or ENDA in its current incarnation. Polls show that most Americans are overwhelmingly against discrimination, so it is a winning issue as long as the Democrats hold firm. If they appear weak and embarrassed to support equality it will be a disaster. The GLBT community will feel betrayed and lose faith in the Party, while the Democrats will play to stereotypes that they have no core beliefs or principles.
Once a non-discrimination bill is passed there is a good chance that President George W. Bush will veto it. There is not much we can do about this, except use it as a political rallying cry to get more Democrats elected to office. The Republicans may try to use this bill as a political weapon, but I think it will backfire. In a recent column I predicted that the New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling mandating civil unions would have little affect on the Midterm elections. I correctly reasoned that the discussion on marriage had moved the bar to where civil unions are now boring and no longer political poison. The same argument can be made for an ENDA-type bill, with marriage rendering it quaint and uncontroversial.
After this bill is passed, we should take our lobbyists off of Capital Hill for another six months and do nothing else until 2008. In this presidential election year, we should introduce hate crimes legislation, which has the least potential to create a backlash, since even our opponents profess that gay bashing is wrong.
Unfortunately, I left off my short list overturning the ban on gays in the military. I think we should steer clear of this issue until after the presidential elections. This topic is too prone to demagoguery with conservatives, once again, descending into submarine barracks. If a Democrat wins the presidency and the party holds both branches of Congress, this would be a good issue for 2009.
Conservatives are right - we need a gay agenda. If our groups strategically and systematically work with Pelosi and Reid we can eat our victory cake and they can still win reelection in a cakewalk.
22 Comments:
Wayne,
Couldn't agree more. We need a strategy. We need to be patient yet aggressive. Can I get my ideas off of my chest? As a father, one thing I have always thought is we need to turn this more and more, into a family issue. Family values are on our side.
Unfortunately, it will be a while before the general public feels empathy for gay people. Many still don't for black people and that form of discrimination was exposed for what it is years ago. Most people are simply unmoved by the idea that gay couples may not be able to visit each other in the hospital and the like. Too many believe that we are so evil and morally bankrupt that we almost deserve it.
I think we need to work hard to show the faces of normal gay families. We need to show how children are hurt by current policies.
We need to show children and explain how both their parents may not be able to a medical decision for them because joint adoption is so complex and expensive. Children of married, heterosexual parents do not face this risk.
We need to show children who for the same reason cannot be put on one of their parents health insurance policies.
We need to show how children suffer because their parents cannot get the same tax benefits. That thousands of dollars a year go to Uncle Sam instead of college savings. (aren't these tax breaks there to benefit all children, not just those in 2 parent heterosexually headed families?)
We need to show children who's stability is threatened in the unfortunate situation of a parental breakup because of goofy laws and views of their parents relationship.
People don't give a rats ass about us, and it will be a long time before most do. Many people will never come to like the issue of gay marriage. But I think many people will be moved when they see how the current system discriminates against children simply because they are part of a gay family.
posted by Anonymous, at
11/23/2006 3:53 PM
Wayne and Steve;
Well written and written with wisdom.
I concur and feel the issue of children and families broadens the audience, and extends the discussion into one of values that revolve around 'the least of these' - a greater number of children are in poverty than any other demographic. They resemble LGBTQ people in political terms, a minority with limited political representation. Another constituency is women, particulary single women. Many of them are impoverished due to the laws of this land, and the endlessly repeated 'welfare queen' frame.
We would do well to acquaint the gay community of the condition of women in this country, because at its core, anti-gay hysteria is about mysogyny - wanting to keep people disempowered because of their gender or sexual and affectional orientation. One need only look at the ludicrous statements about Ted Haggard made by Seattle mega-church head Mark Driscoll.
Keep up the good work. You are among my many reasons for thanksgiving on this day.
It's a terrible idea to suggest that the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military should be overturned. Few if any heterosexual men want to serve at close quarters with homosexuals. Forcing heterosexual men to shower with homosexuals is a violation of their privacy, for the same reason that forcing them to shower with women would be.
posted by Anonymous, at
11/23/2006 8:04 PM
There is a big difference between showering with men who do not reveal their sexual orientation but who are most likely heterosexual and showering with men who are openly and avowedly homosexual. The latter is an experience most heterosexual men would want to avoid having.
posted by Anonymous, at
11/23/2006 11:58 PM
Wayne,
Well said. The Democrats also need smart sound bite. Aside from the individual legislative issues at hand, the Dems have always done a poor job of explaining their position(s) in simple sound bites.
The Dems should not also be afraid to mention the "holy" book of the USA, the Constitution when arguing for GLBTQ rights.
Dave
"One's right to life, liberty and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Some states have already been using a thoughfully-planned "gay agenda". In Iowa, we have picked our battles carefully and over the last 2 elections have succeeded in getting more fair-minded politicians elected in Iowa and more unfair politicians removed from office. As a result, in the next session, we should be able to get two bills passed into law: an anti-bullying bill specifying sexual orientation and a bill adding sexual orientation to the statewide civil rights act covering employment, housing, and public accommodations. We have been successful warding off an anti-marriage amendment to our state constitution. This has happened because a lot of hardworking volunteers across the state have worked together to carefully support this progress. For example, forums have been held across the state to discuss creating safe schools for GLBT youth. Unlike too many other states, Iowa has many people of faith who support equality and they have been vitally important in pursuing human rights protection for all Iowans. More states need to work on the basics such as humanizing GLBT human rights issues and making certain public educational efforts accompany any lobbying efforts. The public cares more about "gay people" when they are described in familiar terms, such as gay brother or sister, gay son or daughter. They may not like the idea of protecting "gay people" from discrimination but generally agree that every parent has the right to expect their children, gay or straight, will be protected from discrimination. Often it is how appeals are framed that determines whether they are effective. Campaigns need to think less about what is being said and more about what is being heard by the audience you are trying to influence.
posted by Anonymous, at
11/24/2006 12:02 PM
Great ideas Wayne--do you have the ear of any influential Democrats? And as for 'no-showers with gays' anonymous---tough shit if they are uncomfortable! If they cant handle it, they shouldnt be in the military. Other countries with gays openly serving in the military dont have these problems (of course they're generally less neurotic about sex than Americans are too). This is no different than a gay Dr touching a man's genitals or a straight ob-gyn examining a woman's vagina and uterus. It's the 21st century--GROW UP! B. Queer
posted by Anonymous, at
11/24/2006 12:03 PM
A good friend of mine is in Baghdad right this moment. In fact, we emailed each other the day before Thanksgiving. He is an incredible soldier and has been told so by his superiors. The fact that this country makes him hide who he is, despite the fact that he does an excellent job risking his life for all of us, is a stain on our flag.
This policy makes America less than "great". It is a policy which comes out of complete small-mindedness and abject ignorance. It is the very kind of ignorance and pettiness, even, that is expressed in the statement that "gays and straights shouldn't be forced to shower together". These are the thoughts of insecure hick-town residents who never crossed the "county line" and who don't know what a passport looks like.
I am beginning to develop a theory about these uneducated "conservative moralizers" and it is this: deep down, on some level, they are aware that their own moral fiber is so incredibly weak and fragile that they are propelled to constantly pontificate. Their phoney, pious judgemnentalism is an ovveraction to an insecurity about their own lack of common decency.
posted by Anonymous, at
11/24/2006 12:25 PM
B. Queer, if showering with people who are sexually attracted to you is not a problem, then should women shower with heterosexual men? There's no reason why not if one accepts your logic, but I do think most people would have a problem with that idea.
posted by Anonymous, at
11/24/2006 3:52 PM
To reduce the issue of Lesbians and Gay men being allowed to serve their country openly to the level of a "don't drop the soap" joke is ludicrous beyond belief! And I can't believe you had the nerve to even bring it up. Whether heterosexual folk know it or not, they're showering with Gay people. Whether they're in the military or not, they're showering with Gay people! If you're a soldier and the idea of being nude next to a Lesbian or Gay man freaks you out so much, you damn well should have been screened out in the psychological examinations! I don't want you defending me with firearms if you're that unstable! We're at WAR, dammit . . . everybody's in the same boat. Let's dispense with the phony "unit cohesion" arguments already!
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at
11/24/2006 5:59 PM
Dear Wayne, Thank you for an inspiring and inspired commentary. Yes, we need a gay agenda and we must be not only smart but also spirtually generous in devising it. I think that the issue of legal protection for the children of gay parents would not only resonate among the general electorate, but would also demonstrate our moral values - something that the religious right claims we are completely lacking, and which those whose hearts are filled with hate are more than willing to believe. We can jump start our liberation from second-class citizenship, and begin it by advocating social justice for those who are the most vulnerable. Let's do it!
posted by Anonymous, at
11/24/2006 10:14 PM
I think that repealing DADT should be at the top of our agenda.
I am not disparaging ENDA or hate crimes legislation. I simply think that repealing DADT is more important to us in the long run.
About 20% of gay men and about 10% of lesbian are veterans -- but gays and lesbians cannot serve openly.
The national discussion about equal treatment of gays and lesbians has centered, for the most part, about "rights". We need to shift the discussion, to "responsibilities".
As trite as it sounds, I believe that there is great power in the perception "if they are willing to put their life on the line for this country ..."
Repealing DADT will drive home to the American people that gays and lesbians bear the fullest responsibilities of citizenship on an equal footing with straights.
I believe, in the long run, nothing is more important to us than making that clear to the American people.
I think that it is significant that the African-American civil rights movement did not gain traction until African-Americans served on an equal footing in the military, bearing the hardships and the risks alongside whites.
I think that repeal of DADT is a critical next step in our movement toward equal treatment until the law.
Chris L, you're right, a friend of mine has a theory that people who are extremely religious while pointing the finger at others are really 'bastards and assume everyone else is too' his words not mine. And to anonymous (of course) your argument is specious. Following your logic we can only have openly gay people in military or public showers if we have 4 of them. 2 for heteros of the opp sex and 1 for gay men and 1 for lesbians. I reiterate; other MATURE countries that have openly gay military personnel dont have a problem with this as I've already said. And if a hetero person *does*, they can get the hell out! Why should a gay person have their career aspirations ruined because some neurotic asshole is afraid they might look as his peepee. Either cope with racial, sexual, ethnic and religious diversity or DONT sign up! B. Queer
posted by Anonymous, at
11/25/2006 10:10 AM
Chris L: [DADT] is a policy which comes out of complete small-mindedness and abject ignorance. It is the very kind of ignorance and pettiness, even, that is expressed in the statement that "gays and straights shouldn't be forced to shower together".
Right on. And, to be blunt about it, the idea that gays and lesbians, who have put blood on the ground for this country in every war we've had, shouldn't serve openly because straights might have personal discomfort about serving with gays and lesbians -- simple, unadorned, ignorant fear -- is remarkably arrogant and offensive.
Military service involves risk and sacrifice, the willingness to put your life on the line in a tight spot. Any straight person who would not serve because of personal discomfort about serving with gays and lesbians isn't fit for military service. If a person is so wrapped up in themselves so as to be afraid of a shower, how could you possibly count on such a person in combat?
Our country does not deserve the sacrifice of gays and lesbians who served when I did, back in the days when it was illegal for us to serve, and serve now under DADT. And that is a simple fact.
DADT is a disgrace. It is every bit as disgraceful as the policies in effect when I served. It is time for straight folks to grow up.
posted by Tom Scharbach, at
11/25/2006 12:03 PM
B. Queer, you are of course ignoring my point. My reasoning is not that there should be separate showers for homosexual men, which would be absurd and impractical, but that homosexual men have no place in the military. Would you consider a woman who didn't want to shower with heterosexual men, or a heterosexual man who didn't want to shower with women, a "neurotic asshole"?
posted by Anonymous, at
11/25/2006 1:12 PM
Oh goodie... a call to put the Democratic Party ahead of equality.
Frankly, if the Democrats were able to bring about greater equality for gay people and in the process lost every other battle over taxes, spending, social projects, Iraq, education or anything else, they would in the future be considered a success.
Ultimately, equality of the citizenry is a goal that trumps any and all other agenda items. And it saddens me to see gay people willing to put equality for anyone - and especially equality for themselves - at a lower value than the advacement of a political party.
posted by Timothy Kincaid, at
11/25/2006 4:23 PM
And YOU anon are ignoring MY point which is that homophobes have NO PLACE in the military. As i've said TWICE already, if they cant handle being around gays (or any other people that make them uncomfortable) DONT SIGN UP!!! We victims of fear and ignorance are NOT going to go quietly away anymore. WE AINT DRIVIN YO ASS NO MO MISS DAISY!!!! B Queer
posted by Anonymous, at
11/25/2006 4:49 PM
"My reasoning is not that there should be separate showers for homosexual men, which would be absurd and impractical, but that homosexual men have no place in the military."
Sheesh! What's this obsession with showers? Both the Israeli and British militaries seem to have integrated gays into their ranks without a problem.
Anonymous shouldn't flatter himself; most gay guys probably wouldn't give him the time of day, much less give him the eye.
posted by Anonymous, at
11/27/2006 10:22 AM
Why do gay men have no business being in the military? That is a ridiculous statement. I used to date a Marine. He was as patriotic, as heroic, and as strong as any Marine. His only downfall was that he had to hide his sexuality or risk losing everything he had worked for; strived for; loved. That was the one relationship I ended. It was too difficult for me to be hidden in the shadows. It was too difficult for me to have to help him get ready for dates so that his CO wouldn't suspect anything. And for the record, most of his close friends in his unit knew and did not care. And, yes, they showered with him and didn't for a moment think that he was cruising them. And for the record, past puberty, we don't go for straight guys. It's a losing proposition. And everyone with half a brain knows that. Even military men in showers. Or Football players in showers. Or Hockey players in showers. I could go on. Shall I go on?? LOL
posted by jekelhyde, at
11/27/2006 7:33 PM
"And for the record, past puberty, we don't go for straight guys." This is beside the point, and vaguely amusing, but go on if you like.
posted by Anonymous, at
11/28/2006 2:42 AM
Fine, but the original question remains unanswered. Why do you think homosexual men have no business being in the military?
posted by jekelhyde, at
11/29/2006 10:20 PM
Wayne, Hummmm, I didn't know I/we-were/are a "special interest" group.
posted by Anonymous, at
11/30/2006 5:36 PM
