The Nation: Gay Days at the DNC

[marmar]

Gay Days at the DNC
posted by Richard Kim on 08/28/2008 @ 2:13pm




Remember 2004, when many a Democrat (and many more religious right demagogues) blamed gay marriage for John Kerry's defeat? Remember San Francisco, where Senator Dianne Feinstein publicly scolded Mayor Gavin Newsom the morning after for arranging those awful queer unions just in time to get Bush re-elected? No? Well, don't worry. Nobody at the DNC is very much eager to pull out that particular wedding album either. Since those days, California's Supreme Court has legalized gay marriage (prompting Newsom to claim "vindication"), and one--yes, just one--anti-gay marriage initiative was beat back at the polls (in Arizona in 2006) while several others have passed. Meanwhile, a federal marriage amendment--which Bush backs but McCain opposes--hangs over not the Democrats, but the Republicans--a nuclear option that not even Karl Rove seems particularly keen to use.

If gay rights (or opposition to it) is not quite yet a problem for the GOP, it has certainly shifted--rapidly and decisively--to a non-issue in the Democratic party. Indeed, it's become a point of pride for the party as a whole: Melissa Etheridge sang primetime at the DNC, Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin hosted a packed luncheon for LGBT delegates (at which Michelle Obama spoke) and speaker after speaker (including Hillary Clinton) has mentioned gays and lesbians at the podium.

That's not to say the party embraces everything many gay advocates would like ("full marriage equality," for example). But the Democratic platform this year is the most pro-gay it has ever been, calling for a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, employment non-discrimination legislation that includes trans folks, increased money to fight AIDS and opposition to the federal marriage amendment. There was some worry earlier this month by gay activists who noticed that the words "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender" appear nowhere in the platform (unlike 2004), but that reflects a move toward using the terms "sexual orientation," "same-sex couple" and "gender identity"--expressions that have some legal teeth. As for marriage, not a single gay delegate I spoke with said it was a make or break issue for them. Most seemed content with the new détente--that the marriage battle is going to be fought out in numerous state referenda and, one day, the Supreme Court--a contentious issue still, but not the so-called determinative national culture war of '04 and nothing to risk a McCain administration over.

Indeed, gay leaders here seemed uncommonly focused on small-bore policy issues, the "gets" immediately possible under a Democratic president and Congress. Jon Hoadley of Stonewall Democrats pointed to getting domestic partnership rights for federal employees, legislation for which is "ready to go," he told me. Rhea Carey of NGLTF emphasized the Bush administration's quiet but thorough gutting of LGBT issues from federal grant guidelines, particularly at HHS, CDC and NIH, which a president Obama could reverse by mere executive order. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/350027

[nomorenomore08]

1. I'm sure members of any "non-majority" group have felt neglected by major political parties.

Sadly, that seems to be the nature of the beast. But at least it seems like the atmosphere is significantly better than it was even 4 years ago, considering the Republicans aren't beating the "gay agenda" drum as hard as they used to, and the Dems aren't quite so afraid of the issue. I think the author of this article is correct, in that the use of gay marriage as a wedge issue is starting to lose its legs - hopefully abortion and church-state separation will follow in the (relatively) near future.

[DCKit]

2. Wow, the Democrats are just so *moderate* about the whole "gay" thing.

I guess the Republics making such and issue about "Teh Gays" for so long has resulted in little except widespread tolerance. They've gone and exhausted that particular platform through outrage overload. :yawn:

I guess the Republicans are finally "stick a fork in it" finished. They might make a half-hearted attempt to attack one or another group on the basis of national origin or religion, but I don't believe a "not white enough" (thanks Lou) or "not Xian" (thanks fundies) messages are going to fly in 2008. So what minority/marginalized group(s) is/are still both vulnerable and safe to attack?

Despite widespread ignorance, there is little support for "All Middle Easterners are Muslim and therefore A.Q/Taliban terra-ists", the "Axes of Evil" and "illegal aliens are stealing the jobs nobody wants" arguments have become pedestrian as we've been terrorized into a stupor by the maladministration.

I don't think they've got anything besides genuine Republicon criminals to pull out of their collective ass this time around - and we all know that's not going to happen.

[xchrom]

3. recommend