Some gay bloggers and activists are calling for an economic boycott of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Ah, the gay community, always ahead of the game when it comes to life's superficialities but as blind as bats when it comes to the things that matter.
A threatened boycott would have been a nice idea in 2008 when it would have mattered--but it seems somewhat ridiculous to boycott the most powerful political organization in the nation when it is already boycotting us.
Maybe we are as silly as Adam Sandler and Sasha Baron Cohen portray us to be.
The Democrats have financially bled us dry, raped our souls, made complete fools out of us, and now we're going to deny them what exactly?
The Democrats, with a majority in the New York State legislature, can't deliver marriage equality in this bluest and gayest of states even with the full and vocal support of New York City's Republican mayor and our Democratic governor.
"Can't" is the wrong word. "Won't" is the operative word.
With a New Jersey Democratic Governor publicly committed to signing a same sex marriage bill, a state legislature with clear pro-gay marriage Democratic majorities in both houses and and several public opinion polls showing that a solid majority of New Jersey voters want same sex marriage for their state, the New Jersey State Senate shot it down.
Promises, party platforms, Presidential commitments, convictions, principles, ethics and Constitutional values all went out the political window once Democrats considered their electability in the November election.
Apparently we no longer have even a two party system. Both parties put Republicans and Christian conservatives first in virtually every decision made.
One could easily argue that the appalling outcome of the marriage equality fight in New Jersey may very well signal the end of the gay civil rights movement for a generation. If New Jersey and New York Democrats are representative of the true values of the Democratic Party, we may be at the end of this game, especially when Obama loses control of Congress come November 2010.
Furthermore unless our community finds a way to shut down the sycophantic money sucking circus that includes HRC, The Task Force, GLAAD and the dozens of other gay advocacy establishment groups that worship at the Obama alter, the boycott will be dismissed by the DNC much in the way Obama dismissed the March on Washington--calling those who marched "The Internet left wing fringe" of the gay world.
As a minority and as a community we need to ask ourselves some very challenging and very painful questions--but these are questions we seem incapable of even articulating, much less asking.
The first and most telling question has to do with the so-called birth of the modern American gay rights movement: The Stonewall Riots.
What actually emerged from that "historic" event? Visibility? No doubt about that. But visibility did not end slavery, sexism or anti-semitism.
Almost half a century has passed since that iconic and legendary moment and yet the gay rights movement has been left in the dust by the civil rights triumphs of blacks, Jews, women, Catholics, Native Americans and Hispanics.
Much did come from Stonewall: parades, parties and less jail time; but as a civil rights movement? Stonewall as the birthplace of the gay civil rights movement may be more myth than reality.
Almost half a century later and discrimination, segregation and marginalization targeting gays is not only legal and commonplace, it still stands as official Obama White House and Democratic-controlled Congress policy.
"Visibility" has resulted in a majority of U.S. States implementing constitutional bans against gay family rights and laws that empower religious institutions to openly and assertively discriminate against gay Americans in employment, social services, education and housing.
While life has dramatically improved for gay Americans--an assessment this gay American of 61 years can easily and confidently render--our civil rights have only slightly improved--and only depending on where you reside. And that fact brings the gay civil rights movement up to the status of pre-Martin Luthor King Jr. African Americans--a time when a black man could be legally imprisoned for daring to drink from a whites only drinking fountain from Texas to Virginia.
Don't misunderstand: the heroes of Stonewall deserve nothing less than our reverence, respect and highest honors--but along the way, we most definitely lost their message, outrage and sense of purpose. Each and every one of the Stonewall rioters would be appalled to see how their fury has morphed into parties, Mardi Gras-like parades, celebrity studded galas and endless fund-raising emails from HRC, the Task Force and Family Equality.
The Stonewall Veterans must be pleased that we can now legally consume alcohol in public and fuck in the privacy of our own homes without fear of arrest but they must also look at a Tsunami of horrific national and state discriminatory laws and government policies that did not exist in 1969 and now define much of our lives.
How can we call Stonewall the birth of a civil rights movement when in fact there are hundreds of new laws limiting civil rights for gay Americans that did not exist in 1969.
Stonewall Veterans must also be shocked at how the gay community of the here and now squanders it's political currency, economic clout and social influence.
In fact, the most astonishing part of this mess is that "visible" gay America is equal to the more successful minorities in hard numbers and economic clout. But in terms of political power, we might as well still be criminalized.
Even the most conservative right wing estimates and Evangelical lies admit to 6.2 million queers. Objective statisticians and marketing pundits put the number somewhere between 24 and 35 million. Science suggests that somewhere between 8 to 12 percent of every human community falls somewhere along the spectrum in the so-called LGBTQ community. That translates to about 30 million gay Americans.
Politically and gay rights movement speaking, these are shocking numbers.
Why shocking?
Shocking because we must ask ourselves why a minority with such large numbers has been so ineffective and incompetent when it comes to protecting and demanding its own civil and even basic human rights?
Hispanics and Latinos of all races cumulatively account for 46.9 million of the total population. African Americans add up to 37.6 million Americans. Jews total around 5.3 million of which about 3 million are registered voters--nationally.
The Jewish vote city by city and state by state is relatively insignificant compared to the gay vote, except for the fact that over 80 percent of Jewish voters vote and they vote with a mostly unified voice. The Jewish vote counts. Why doesn't the gay vote count? Is it because of Israel? Maybe. Is that what the gay community needs? A sovereign gay nation that stands as a scary member of the nuclear club?
Unlike queers, other "visible" minorities from Hispanics to Native Americans enjoy powerful and focused political and social unity, direction, passion for their own communities and clearly effective and potent social and political advocacy groups.
But all is not lost. Boycotting may be an idiotic strategy, but refocusing our dollars and energies into a cohesive, well-funded and mission-driven political party would be another matter entirely. A boycott is spitting in the wind; a new progressive American political party that stands for equality, tolerance, diversity and humanism would be spitting in their faces. And I am all for that!
Most democracies--with the glaring exception of the United States--give voters four or five or more options at the polls.
Americans are forced to decide between a centrist party with conservative social views or a right-wing party with outlandishly offensive social views.
But, for gay voters, the two party system is particularly offensive. Republicans are outwardly horrible on gay issues and the bulk of the gay vote will, automatically, go to Democratic candidates. There are no alternative candidates ready to take a stand for equality and thus, there are no consequences for Democrats when they fail to promote the equal rights agenda.
The answer is a third party that concentrates the financial wealth and voting clout of the gay community in major cities and blue states.
We might not have the numbers to actually beat major party candidates, but we most certainly have the numbers to defeat Democrats without voting for Republicans--and that should scare the Democrats enough to deliver the results and actions promised but always forgotten once they are in office.
Threatening the fiscal base of the Democratic Party is an important tactic--but threatening their voter base by floating a truly liberal candidate in districts with close races would be an even better strategy.
Have someone run on an equal rights, populist platform with support for social services and equality under the law and see how quickly the Democrats start racing around for ways to fold in the left vote they have ignored for so long.
Ralph Nader tried this and managed to strike fear into the heart of major political parties for quite some time. Let's play on this fear. Stop donations to the Democrats, yes, but redirect that money to a campaign for plurality, for choice and for political competition.
It is long past the time when Stonewall should be honored and its promise fulfilled. Instead we--gay America--have turned Stonewall into nothing more than a myth, a fantasy.
The strategies and tactics pursued by the professional gay advocacy movement of the last 20 years have are clearly a colossal and historic failure. And as a result, Stonewall is more honestly described as the birthplace the gay party scene; hardly a gay rights movement. Hardly.
"The answer is a third party that concentrates the financial wealth and voting clout of the gay community in major cities and blue states."
I have said this for years but with one caveat - that the party not exclude running candidates from the major parties on our ticket when they have proven themselves worthy of it. If nothing else having our own line on the ballot can quantify how much our support can help a major party candidate without "squandering" our votes on candidates that are not electable - which is not to say that there aren't gay candidates that could win elections. As we've recently seen in Houston and other places - there certainly are.
Posted by: Alan down in Florida | Monday, 11 January 2010 at 11:00 AM
There may be 30 million queers nationwide, but there is one distinct advantage that other minority groups have that we do not: location. Blacks live with blacks because they are a racial minority. Being a sexual minority, queers come from straights and then have to actively search out the locations of other queers. This dilutes our numbers hardcore, and where we would otherwise have the queer equivalent of strong, united black communities in the Bible Belt and the South, instead we get closet cases. Our numbers are just too diluted. Love the 3rd party idea though- that'd piss off the Dems so bad they'd shit rainbows to get that money back.
Posted by: Shane in Hell (Missouri) | Monday, 11 January 2010 at 09:21 PM