Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Why No Democratic Presidential Candidate Is Getting My Gay Money

Posted by Guest Blogger at 12:10 PM on June 26, 2007.


Nancy Goldstein: How can you contribute money to someone who might think your lifestyle is immoral?
homergaymarriage
gay marriage

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Nancy Goldstein, originally appeared on The Huffington Post

Every year Gay Pride month begets an obligatory stream of mainstream non-news, and this one has been no exception. "Democrats Cautious on Gay Rights Issues" from this past Sunday's Washington Post must have had queers involuntarily spraying orange juice through their nostrils from Seattle to Springfield.

I mean, really. Is there anyone on earth for whom this is news?

You don't even need to go as far back as 2000, when Dick Cheney shellacked Joe Lieberman on gay rights in the vice-presidential debate. Hell, just this past spring the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama camps fumbled and bumbled like Keystone Kops following the declaration of Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that homosexuality was immoral.

But it's gay marriage, more than any other queer-related issue, which sets off breathtaking displays of equivocation as candidates struggle mightily to pander to the polls (allegedly the majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage) without losing gay votes and dollars.

"I haven't yet got across that bridge," John Edwards says. Clinton and Obama straddle similar lines, "citing religious concerns and the fact that older generations of Americans view the term 'marriage' as a commitment between a man and a woman."

It's a near-perfect ploy. How can you call these nice peoples' positions homophobic or cowardly when clearly it's just a personal-religious-thing and a respecting-the-elders thing?

University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein takes this bigotry-as-religious-belief-and-respect even further in this past May's New Yorker profile of Obama:

If there's a deep moral conviction that gay marriage is wrong, if a majority of Americans believe on principle that marriage is an institution for men and women, I'm not at all sure he shares that view, but he's not an in-your-face type," Sunstein says. "To go in the face of people with religious convictions -- that's something he'd be very reluctant to do." This is not, Sunstein believes, due only to pragmatism; it also stems from a sense that there is something worthy of respect in a strong and widespread moral feeling, even if it's wrong.
Now this is one very clever little piece of PR. On the one hand, Obama didn't say these words, so he can't be held accountable for them. On the other hand, Obama's campaign hasn't denied or revised Sunstein's comments. So Sunstein's speculations are just kind of out there.

In a dazzling display of University of Chicago law school pyrotechnics, Sunstein suggests that Obama might be more liberal than he lets on re: marriage equality while spinning his colleague's failure to publicly support it as a healthy outgrowth of Obama's penchant for compromise and his respect for -- of all things -- difference.

On planet Sunstein, talking to people who oppose marriage equality about marriage equality is getting "in-your-face" (which, by the way, is precisely what white people are always afraid black people will do to them), and it's the reverse of the image Obama's people want you to have of their candidate. And challenging people's "religious convictions," even when those convictions justify unconstitutional forms of bigotry, isn't brave or moral. It's not even an opportunity for Obama to display his much-lauded ability to reconcile people with allegedly opposing views -- the focus of the entire New Yorker profile, which is called "The Conciliator."

I can't help but wonder about Obama, the son of a black, Kenyan father and a white, American mother. He was born six years before Loving v. Virginia ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the US. Had he come of age earlier, would he have remained silent about those laws, which would have forced his father to pretend to be his mother's chauffeur as they drove across America? Would he have maintained that silence with folks who made those laws -- acting out of the same kinds of "deep moral convictions" and "religious beliefs" that now decree that marriage can only be between a man and a woman?

Now, I think that Obama's more decent than most. I'd even say the same of Clinton and Edwards. And I know that presidential contenders have to say a lot of stupid shit. But that doesn't keep me from being offended by this gamesmanship when it comes to my rights.

So while one of these Democrats will almost surely get my vote, not a one of them is going to get a penny from me.

After all, I'm an old-fashioned kind of girl. My grandparents -- all of them the children of Jewish immigrants who fled the pogroms of late 19th-century Czarist Russia -- passed on to me their very strong feelings about not supporting bigotry. I haven't yet got across that bridge.

Digg!

Tagged as: clinton, obama, gay rights, election08, democratic party, edwards

Nancy Goldstein’s work has appeared on AlterNet, Raw Story, Pam’s House Blend, and in the Boston Phoenix and Curve. She has covered topics as diverse as America’s growing class divide, the racial politics of Alabama’s death row, the fight to ban abortion in South Dakota, the debilitating effect of the war on drugs on women and children, barriers to mental health care for returning US troops, and homophobia in its many forms and locations, from women’s sports to the Vatican.


Senate Votes to Move Forward on Health-Care Bill: McCain Accuses Reid of Criminal Scheme
In debate leading to vote, McCain compared Reid to Madoff, Hatch invoked socialism, and Lincoln promised trouble ahead
Post by Adele Stan. November 21, 2009.
ACORN: Another Super Villain with Super Powers
For the trembling patriots of the right.
Post by Steve M.. November 21, 2009.
Tiny Michigan Town Tells Liz Cheney to Take her Fearmongering Elsewhere
Someplace where they're all wusses.
Post by BarbinMD. November 21, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I am so sick of these religious bigots
Posted by: Ellie1 on Jun 27, 2007 2:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
forcing their "principles" on everyone. You don't like gay marriage, fine-no one is inviting you to one or visiting a gay bar. You don't like abortion, ok but stay out of other people's bodies and lives who don't think like you. Why do other people's opinions and life styles offend you so much? I am sure there are plenty of things YOU do that would offend me (like hypocrisy and voting for murderers) but you are free to make that choice-even though your vote effects me more than my life choices effect you. Just mind your own damn business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not that I'm donating to anyone anyhow.....
Posted by: Aureantes on Jun 27, 2007 3:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...but I'm emphatically with this article, even though Obama is closest to getting my vote -- actually I was just over on the article re Elizabeth Edwards' take on gay marriage, and put in a few cents worth there.

Excerpt:
These days the entire queer sector is courted and then discarded routinely by politicians who want to have their Democratic/liberal ducks in a row and then make sure they don't get too uppity in actually wanting things to change for the better. Judging from Bill Clinton's backstage advice, there's no reason to trust Hillary to be "fair" re "gay issues", and judging from the fact that Elizabeth Edwards is only in the "sympathy speech" position and not running for office herself, there's no reason to trust John Edwards any more than one already does, as her comments have no official impact on his intentions.

Trust has to be earned. At this point, unless there's a secret tip to the GLBT community to hold under our collective hat, no one gets particular street cred for publically claiming to be 'for gay rights and even civil unions...but against gay marriage', because the issue has been out here and active for several years to see whether or not it's a good social policy for the nation as a whole. And in general, it has been an excellent one, which no one is justified in calling a threat to traditional marriages -- unless the threat is that the worst kind of traditional marriages will be shown to be unnecessary and abusive and
themselves undeserving of the dignity of that name.

There has to be a better clue than this to indicate where a candidate really stands on this sizeable of an issue, at least to the people for whom it matters greatly in their lives that there
should be fairness.

(http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/55112/)

My blog -- http://aureantesrealm.blogspot.com/
My newsgroup -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hyperlucidity/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is a choice.
Posted by: EKSwitaj on Jun 27, 2007 5:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why give even your vote to a candidate who refuses to stand up against bigotry? Dennis Kucinich supports gay marriage. So what if he's not among the anointed front runners? I always thought it was up to voters to decide who could win. And if enough of us refuse to settle, then he really does have a chance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not Dennis K Posted by: SJ
Calling people bigots is a form of bigotry... religious bigotry since...
Posted by: poppop_schell on Jun 27, 2007 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
every world religion considers homosexual sex immoral. Even IF same-sex marriage is eventually accepted as equivalent morally to REAL marriage by American society, this will NOT rescind that it is sinful in the eyes of God, no matter what religion you talk about. There are eternal spiritual laws just as operative as physical laws like gravity.

IMO, homosexual advocates would receive much less resistence and actuallyly help from people like me IF you looked at individual civil injustices rathet than trying to ram an immoral lifestyle down my throat. But, you can simply ignore this advice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you... Posted by: buffeliscious
So you really believe your vote counts
Posted by: fedupw/bush on Jun 27, 2007 9:59 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We in the US have been brain washed into believing our vote will count. When less than 30% of those that could vote,really do,it makes not difference ! Most of the time ,the ones that do vote decide to vote for the lesser of two evils,no matter what party. As they have all sold out to the highest bidder,except those that have NO chance of ever getting elected ! Ron Paul is a great example,great ideas ( get out of Iraq,get rid of the IRS,CIA,FBI ,Homeland security) But the powers that be don't even want him to be in the debates. WHAT are they afraid of????????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TWO PARTIES? LIFE IS MORE THAN JUST GAY RIGHTS
Posted by: SJ on Jun 27, 2007 2:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been trying to send small donations to Ralph Naders group and to the WSWS. These groups unfortunately are smothered out yet they have had no qualms in the past or present to support gay rights and gay marriage. I have discontinued my donations and membership to Human rights campaign and last time they called I told them not to. I feel the war in Iraq is a genocide for oil campaign that the two party system is backing because it is a war that the major elite in this country want. When they backed Joe Leiberman. The democrates even now fumble to allow time for the so called blood bath SURGE to wipe out as many resistance as possible . Democrates also continue to put oil contracts as markers to pull the troops out to come home, pay backs to the elite and big oil companies who the elite have majoer ownership. I want gay rights but not at the expense of the further loss of life of people who deserve to have the benifits of their countries natural resourses. Muslims are not exactly friendly to gay rights either, but the loss of innocent life is already over 1 million by human rights groups. It is hard to find the time to keep up on these politicians, but the democrates are just there to keep the public from supporting a real party that will look out for the peoples rights. They tend to call these other groups spoilers, lets just give that two meanings. Groups that would spoil for the good peoples rights and spoil sour political atmosphere for the current parties, they endorse freedoms were gay marriage is OK, separation of church and state. The democrates are as big at lies as the republicans. If Kuchinich was as passionate as he sounds he should never have endorsed John Kerry last election at the VERY LEAST, let alone stay in the democratic party. Edwards has his wife slip gay marriage in, chicken sh*t. The elite will put up who ever is best at morphing the public support. The so called two party system works off of divide and conquer and fear tactics. The current system is corrupt and they need to feel what SHOCK AND AH feels like. Donate to a third party of your choice. Remember John Dean and how he was non war and free health care and major support, the corporate media siezed on making him look like a fool because his voice cracked, Then the democrates nominated some one quite opposite from Dean a pro WAR canidate. Don't be fooled by bring troops home, when they will leave bases maned and the worlds larges embassy inhabitated. Bringing the troops home is a lie, it still leaves a military POLICE state behind. Plus redeploy to Afgahnistan is another. GAYS STILL DIE SILENTLY FOR THIS COUNTRY. Who has taken up Cindy Sheehans voice. Publicised her denouncing the democratic party and dropped her like nothing. I AM A HUMAN BEING FIRST , then I am a gay man. I fight for the rights of all people, american or not, humanity comes first, countries and goverments are corrupt, so my allegence is with the people first. Help wake up amerca.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's religion got to do with sexuality?
Posted by: willymack on Jun 27, 2007 4:24 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're not even talking about apples & oranges here. We're talking about apples and pipe wrenches. What business is anyone's sexual orientation to anybody, including the witch doctors posing as our moral exemplars? Let's face it; they've got more than they can handle just trying to shove their silly hokum down the throats of their "followers".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Consistant vote to the Right
Posted by: SJ on Jun 27, 2007 7:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama voted for teh bankrupcy law, which was a heuge paypack to teh credit card industry for Bush as they were his largest contributors. so a repeal of bankrupcy laws to exclude credit card companys , so that would still have to be paid back in the case of a bankruptcy, and have te right to change the interest rate due them in such cases. This stab in the back to the very people the democratic party should protect the poor people of this country. Who in bankruptcy are the least likely to be able to pay back their debt let alone have the interest rate hiked. Sorry of all a black man and a major backer of the bill. Now on MRS.HILLARY when the New Yoork Court not only rulled against gay parenting, the assault they handed down in comment was a huge blow to the gay rights movement in their comments on gays as parents. Hilary, as a lawyer no less, refrained from making even the least comment about the verdict or judtges comments handed down on children should have heterosexual parents. This horrendous stab in the back to the gay community, from her silence on the matter only shows how she would flow under pressure. Its a wonder she spoke out for HIV funding in th estate of New York when funds were cut along with other major city funds in redistribution because the administration said other states were getting under funding, so more fund were directed to, yeh u guessed it red states. Blue states Calif and NY lost money. Hilary probably figured on the adoption issues who else are they going to vote for. Edwards in the last presidential was not or said he felt marriage was as he was raised defined for a man and women. Last presidential it was Sharpton and Kucinich for gay marriage. All three major canidates are for a major military presence in the world and are for military controling Iran. Hilary in her fund raising to AIPEC assured the group Irans nuclear energy development would not be allowed and the US would continue to hold Isreals interest at heart. There is little lf major differance emerging from the democratic party that is of much differance from that of the republican. Much of the differance is assumed by their base rather than stated by them explicidly by front runners and other canidates. Major example is end the war bring the troops home is twist on word and true meaning. Bills they have submitted, Bush vetoed or not, call for securing oil contracts, which majority Iraqi have no intention giving to the US. On the vetoed bill it would never reached the point, bring troops home. Only indicated to the Iraqi the true intentions of the US goverment. Goverment of Iraq is not a working goverment unless it serves the major US powers interests. Democrats could cut funding or could resubmitted the bill again despite Bush veto- no they capitulate take the time capsule out and Bush signs. I refuse to vote for demolishers on the pretense they have gay rights at heart. What they have is to serve needs of the wealthy of this country, was why Pelosi said befor the nov election, impeachment is off the table. Next week the democratic party started recieving major donations from major corporations. They only need hear we will continue to work with George to see your desires are pursued. They also endorsed the abstenence only bill, which much now goes to the religeous right, who has also been donating quite large amouts to republican party. Tax dollars makeing full circle back to a political party one might say. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070618/reynolds (abstenence gluttons) http://www.alternet.org/module/email/?storyID=53700 (Democrates fund Abstenence fund) also at TomPaine.com June 14 I would rather not vote at all than support either party. People continue to believe, but they are corrupt be, blood is on our hands. I will not allow them, my vote thru gay rights, to help them achieve their blood for oil program with democracy freedom cover.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Have the "gay" citizens considered...
Posted by: johnwoolman on Jun 28, 2007 4:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like most of you, I am fed up with the inequality and circumlocutions used by the "straight" world to justify their bigotry. Well, kids, let an old queer suggest a new, possibly novel approach. It worked for the Founding Fathers and Mothers and may well serve to draw the attention of the administration, candidates and others who set themselves up as moral arbiters. Refuse to pay taxes! Since we are not equal to straight people, fine, don't expect me to pay equal taxes to support a system which puts strictures on my personal life and worse, which declares me unequal under the law. Seems intelligent queers cannot work in the Army, never mind how important their skills might be...God help us! The other soldiers might catch queerness or whatever! It is so asinine as to be undeserving of notice, except it encapsulates yet further, a bigotry and ignorance which is undeserved in this Republic.
Like the writer says, no one is asking anyone else to go to a gay bar or, Heaven forfend, enjoy a sexual liaison. But I say give us equal rights or be prepared for a serious fight. No more up-dos on the evangelical women, no more decent make-up when you go into Macy's or Nordstrom's, no more interesting entrees at Lutece or Masa's. And forget what the ladies will be wearing next year! Hollywood? The entire understructure of make-up, costume, lighting design and set design are shot to hell. Enjoy a good Broadway show? lots o'song, lots o'dance?...sure, try to get the straight boys to do what WE can. Let's cancel next season's ballet repertoires and tours, too.
One look at Ann Coulter tells you right away she has NO gay friends...I cannot even imagine any gay boy worth his gibson letting a friend leave her apartment looking, well, like an old hooker. She is SO last year! Skirt way too short (so 70's! and does she have anything else to wear?), hair way too long (so 60's) and poorly dealt with, and who told her about make-up? God, what a mess...just one look at her tells you what's going on inside her little pea-brain. The poor thing.
Democrats need to get a clue, and perhaps the gay contingent in this country needs to get some courage to make another stand. Compton's in SF, the Stonewall in NY...these riots are part of our history. Perhaps we need to make a point again. Matthew Shepherd, Brandon Teena, the host of other youngsters slain for being transgender or just different. It is time this came to a crashing halt. Brokeback Mountain happens too many time each day. It needs to stop. We need to make it stop!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT MONEY HAD EMOTION? CAN IT ALSO BE SAD? N/M
Posted by: poppop_schell on Jun 29, 2007 8:07 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
N/C

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Falwell Brokebutt
Posted by: Malcus Garvey on Jun 29, 2007 1:58 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not the candidate themselves who are recognizing homoSINsuality as "immoral," it's Thee Holy Book(s)! Fine, if you don't agree with any Holy Book, you're antigodly?
Maybey this abominational lust-life is from the inception of Lucifer/Satan?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]