Gays, lesbians and transgendered: What the hell did the Democrats ever do for you??

Great Debates
1

In a closed thread in MPSIMS, andygirl was fretting about Bush being President, stating how much it worried her to be thought of as a second-class citizen by the leader of the country.

Which got me to thinking–how is that really any different from Clinton? Let’s be realistic here:

–After pledging to unequivocally end the ban on gays in the military, Clinton backed off and instead approved the dastardly “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, the net effect of which is to keep gays in the closet. If they come out, they’re drummed out of the service, just like always.

–Clinton signed the DOMA with absolutely no hesitation, even going so far as to say, “I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position.” (See this site for his full statement.) Nationwide, opposition to gay marriages are as strong as ever. Two states just yesterday passed bans on gay marriages.

–Clinton failed to get the Employment Non-Discrimination Act passed several times. The bill would have granted protected status to gays and lesbians, although it only would have really applied to firings and was fairly toothless in its other provisions, including same-sex partnership benefits.

–Even with Clinton’s two Supreme Court appointees, the Court has not granted cert to hear cases regarding gay marriage. Furthermore, they don’t seem inclined to hear cases on state anti-sodomy laws, either.

It doesn’t appear that a Gore/Lieberman leadership would be any different. Neither of them supports gay marriages, they’re both extremely centrist, they wouldn’t be able to push ENDA through, and aren’t interested in the anti-sodomy laws.

So what exactly is it that the Democrats have done that you’re so terrified of having reversed? Haven’t they really been all talk and no action? It seems to me that any positive changes in the status of G/L/TG people have been cultural in nature (movies, TV), fairly isolated, and no thanks to Bill Clinton and the government.

Any thoughts?

2

I’m guessing that inaction is preferable to demonization. Sort of similar to African-American support to democrats. They probably have broken at least half of their promises, but they don’t try to actively demonize us with racebaiting as members of the Republican party have done almost every single election since 1960.

3

Yeah, but would George Bush Sr. have lifted the outright ban on gays in the military at all?

I suppose it’s ever-so-slightly better to say, “You fairies can be in the military so long as you stay in the closet” than to say “Homos go home”.

4

Good point Phil. No debate from me. Kinda like asking, what exactly have they done for the poor, the environment, minorities? Ok, maybe a little more than for gays, but not much.

I kinda think that’s why Gore lost.

5

Agreed that the Clinton/Gore record isn’t great, but compared to the demonization that the GLBT community often receives from many Republicans, especially those who are in cahoots with the conservative Christians, it’s almost a black and white difference.

Gore and Clinton at least acknowledge that the GLBT community has a place in American politics and makes a token effort to fight for us.

Meanwhile the Republican party RESTORED the anti-GLBT rhetoric in its platform, especially at the insistence of the conservative Christians. Bush was practically forced to meet with the GLBT member of his party, and even then not with the official organization, but merely some non-affliated, mainly retired Republicans. He’s on record as being opposed to gay marriage or even civil unions and gay adoptions. He’s given indications he would oppose repealing sodomy laws or even passing ENDA.

Oh, but I might get a tax break from him for a couple years. What, maybe $50 or $100? Yeah, right that makes a big difference in my life.

6

Phil,

Your point is very well taken. (Please excuse my lack of coherence this morning- I was posting after staying up all night watching the election, and I didn’t feel like elaborating.)

My feeling is that when it comes to gay rights, neither party is that great at all. Be that as it may, the Clinton administration is a lot more gay friendly than past ones. Despite the flaws, I still percieve the Democrats as a more progressive, gay-friendly party than the Republicans.

It’s not that one is better than the other, it’s that one is not quite as bad, IMHO.

Also, since I call myself a Democrat, I was quite upset about Bush’s perceived win.

Freyr explained it quite well, I think.

7

Why don’t you vote third party then andygirl? The only way I would see to change things is to get the issue to be like abortion, and your not really getting anywhere if your debating between demonization and indiffrence. Though ive actually seen none of Bushes thoughts on issues like that, same with Gore so it would probably be a nonissue with either.

8

i’d say the democratic party tolerates us, though they don’t actually go so far as to support us. while the republican party wants us to be banned and outlawed. not much of a choice, but one is not as bad as the other.

what has the national democratic party done for us?? nothing i can think of.

9

The tax break from the Republican party is meaningless when gay people can be fired for being gay. Bush supports employers being able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. He managed to avoid saying this directly in the debate, instead using the Grand Old “Special Rights” dodge, but he would prefer giving companies the discrection to fire gay people if they are found to be gay. I think that’s indefensible. I guess I have to overlook the military gay marriage and just try to keep my job, because if you can’t pay the rent, the other stuff is fairly meaningless.

10

FTR, I did vote 3rd party; Nadar. There was no way that Bush would NOT take Texas. Therefore, since (most) Republicans either hate us or consider us an annoyance at best and Democrats just tolerate us, a 3rd party vote would be my best bet. I was really hoping the Greens would make the 5% mark. sigh

If Bush does win the Presidency, which seems likely at this point, that will have the Republicans in the White House and BOTH Houses of Congress. That means at least 2 years and prehaps as much as 4 or 6 'til anything positive WRT GLBT rights happening.

To add insult to injury, the Greens didn’t make the 5% mark, so they probably won’t be an effective force in the '04 elections. Add to this people like Milo gloating over the victory you wonder why I’m bitter?

I’m surprised that I haven’t gone and bought an automatic weapon and peppered the Governor’s Mansion here in Austin yet. :frowning:

11

The Clinton campaign had a record number of openly-gay appointees in their administration. Do you think Bush would have kept that up? Doubtful.

Better centrist Supreme Court justices than conservative - methinks they’ve done enough damage as it is (the sodomy laws being upheld comes to mind), especially considering that civil unions will likely make it to the USSC during the next four years.

Are the Democrats our best friends? No, not really, as you’ve pointed out; but, in the business of politics, they are our only friends. And yes, there are other parties that may more closely ally themselves with us disenfranchised folks, and I do encourage people to support them, but they haven’t made any political waves big enough yet to change policy and/or influence the direction of acceptance in this country.

No one, gay or straight, is exactly tap-dancing over the quality of either party.

Esprix

12

If this actually happens, you were at my place at the time, ok? Even though I live on the other side of the planet…

13

Be careful with that noise…your post wouldn’t have to be interpreted too loosely to be considered a threat on the life of the President-Elect. The SS (uh, I mean Secret Service) is none too reasonable ANYWAY, let alone with an election as close and controversial as this one.

14

**Joe_Cool wrote:

Be careful with that noise…your post wouldn’t have to be interpreted too loosely to be considered a threat on the life of the President-Elect. The SS (uh, I mean Secret Service) is none too reasonable ANYWAY, let alone with an election as close and controversial as this one.**

Point taken. I retract my statement about peppering the Governor’s Mansion. I was merely expressing my frustration over having no effective voice in the political process over the next several years.

Maybe Dubya will be a “uniter, not a divider” but I ain’t holding my breath. :frowning:

15

Apples are red and Oranges are orange.

You have a cite for this attack I am sure.

I don’t believe for a moment that the Republican agenda is anti-gay, anti-poor, anti-black, any of that crap. Now, the Religious right, which funds the Republican camp, may be anti-gay, they are also pro-life, but you don’t really see the Republican Party waving a Pro-life flag anymore do you? Neither have I seen any Republican candidates yelling in the streets to destroy anything with a pink triangle on it.

I missed all the race baiting in the five Presidential elections I have voted in, Sterling perhaps you could expand? I know that the Democratic Party and some Black Leaders have demonized the Republican Party, but I haven’t seen the reverse, quite the opposite in fact. Of course, I’m sure all those ‘Uncle Tom’ black Republicans are just a fluke.

Considering that the poor supposedly make up 60% of the population, I assume that 5/6 of them are Democrat and the other 1/6 are just sadly misled by their stupidity. Of course that would mean there are no wealthy or middle class Democrats, that can’t be right… Again, Democratic Party leaders try to demonize the Republican Party as being against the poor and it simply is not so. You can support business and the poor at the same time. Ask me how if you don’t see it.

I agree, the Republican Party has not been the most hospitable to the gay population, but we are working on them. :slight_smile:

16

Please, please do not post things like this. I don’t agree with you, but I would really hate for you to go through being questioned by the Secret Service. There’s also the fact that saying things like this do not add anything to your argument, and make you seem…kinda loopy.

17

…that will teach me to not refresh threads I leave open while I’m at a meeting…

Thanks, Freyr, for rescinding that comment.

18

Bah. All you people who think the republicans secretly want you dead? Don’t you know that Cheney’s daughter is (semi)openly gay? Don’t you realize that plenty of high-up republicans are gay, or have gay family members, or gay friends, or gay staffers?

The republican party <> to the religious right. They want the votes of the religious right, but they are not the religious right. I don’t support hate crimes laws, I don’t support special civil rights laws. If you think that means I think gays should be killed (or “banned and outlawed”) you aren’t thinking. I am against those things because I’m libertarian, not because I’m anti-gay.

19

**JustAnotherGuy wrote:

Originally posted by DavisMcDavis
The tax break from the Republican party is meaningless when gay people can be fired for being gay.

Apples are red and Oranges are orange.**

The point is that Dubya’s promised tax cut will be meaningless to people who can be fired from their job simply by being GLBT. If you don’t believe this can happen, I suggest you’re woefully ignorant of the realities of society.

**Originally posted by DavisMcDavis
Bush supports employers being able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

You have a cite for this attack I am sure.**

Go here for the 2000 platform of the Republican National committee. Check under the section for FAMILY and you’ll see how the Republicans feel about sexual orientation (they call it sexual preference) and its relation to the law.

FYI, it’s been the Republicans who have continuously block ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimation Act) from passing, mainly because it includes sexual orientation in it’s list of protected classes.

**Lemur866 wrote:

Don’t you realize that plenty of high-up republicans are gay, or have gay family members, or gay friends, or gay staffers?**

Please name ONE openly gay republican who is on the Nationial Committee or otherwise in a position of power in the Republican party.

Yes, Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian. Yet, when asked to recouncil the Bush/Cheney/Republican position on civil rights for GLBTs with their daughter’s homosexuality, they either change the subject or refuse talk about it. Apparently it’s okay for their close family to be “that way” but everyone else is the country is condemned.

The republican party <> to the religious right. They want the votes of the religious right, but they are not the religious right.

I assume you’re <> symbol means NOT. For all practical purposes, they are the same. They Republicans actively court their vote and incorporate their doctrine into their platforms. No moderate Republicans do anything to fight this. The Republicans also introduce legislation that discriminates against the GLBT community, witness Measure 9 in Oregon this year and Proposition 2 in Colorado back in '96. Whenever legislation is introduced to repeal the out-dated, archaic sodomy laws, it’s always Republicans who fight it.

For what seems like the millionth time, I’m not asking for “special rights” I’m saying that I have the same civil rights that any other citizen enjoys. Heterosexuals don’t have to worry about losing their jobs if their employer finds who they sleep with, homosexuals do. The same with public housing. You have a right of privacy under the 4th admendment, I do not. You can marry the person you love, I cannot.

When legislation is introduced to correct this, Republicans continually fight it, especially at the goading of conservative Chrisitians.

And please don’t bring up the idea that such legislation is unnecessary. According to that logic, the 13th, 14th, 15th & 19th amendments to the US Constitution are uncessary, along with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

20

And the absence of such a tax cut under a Gore administration would be equally meaningless.

As an outsider to the issue (not an American) I have to admit I’m amazed at the extent to which the Democratic party has succeeded in casting itself as being on the side of oppressed minorities - in this case gays and bisexuals - despite a complete and total absence of any evidence that the Democratic Party is actually helping gays and lesbians. Perhaps it’s that the perceived roles of the two parties are so ingrained in people’s minds that they cannot perceive anything else, but the Democrats have done nothing to earn this reputation, at least on a federal level.

In eight years of being President, Bill Clinton’s sum total of contributions to the GLBT community (and you can insert “African-American” or “Hispanic” or any other identifying modifer in there) has been to make that ridiculous scrunchy-lip frowny face whenever he wants to look sad on TV when the issue comes up. At least with a $50 tax cut you can rent 15-20 movies so you don’t have to watch Al Gore crack his outer hull open trying to make that face.

Why, after eight years of complete inaction under Bill Clinton that amounted to about the same amount of progress as under eight years of Ronald Reagan and four years of George Bush - which is to say progress gained through hard grassroots work but precious little help from the feds - ANYONE would think Al Gore will be any better just completely baffles me. I can understand not voting for Dubya because he’s a dolt, but not voting for him because Al Gore will be a greater social reformer defies the record, defies a reasonable examination of the politics involved, and defies Al Gore’s nature himself, he being an elitist, opportunistic, insulated blowhard with no more principles than either Bill Clinton or Dubya.