Lessons for Heterosexual Democrats

[queerbychoice]

Once and for all, this is to all of the heterosexual Democrats who believe supporting same-sex marriage cost them the election and that in order to win, they need to have a candidate who won't support it anymore.

1. You already DIDN'T support same-sex marriage. Your candidate already DIDN'T support same-sex marriage. You already put ABSOLUTELY NO PROPOSITIONS ON THE BALLOT IN ANY STATE that aimed to give queers more rights.

2. Moaning about how in order for your party to win the election, you have to not be seen by homophobes as the party who's failing to defend the homophobia of marriage is not exactly likely to stop Republicans from sponsoring any further such propositions. Rather, it is likely to encourage them to sponsor more such propositions than ever - causing you to lose more elections than ever, since no amount of having your candidates disclaim all support for same-sex marriage is ever going to break homophobic voters' habit of viewing you as the ever-so-slightly less homophobic and therefore less appealing political party in anything less than 50 years, unless maybe your candidates start actually walking the streets mass-murdering queers, and possibly not even then.

3. That being the case, it's in your best interests to start ACTUALLY supporting our rights, since you're already firmly associated with us in homophobic voters' minds anyway, and the only way to make being associated with us stop being such a handicap for you is to start actually working to cure homophobic voters of their homophobia.

4. In order for you to have any chance at doing so, it would probably help considerably for you to bother curing YOURSELVES of your homophobia first. This includes recognizing that for you to go around telling us we should just shut up and stop demanding the right to marry who we love until sometime when it's more convenient for you, while you show no willingness to sacrifice your OWN right to marry or remain married to who you love and to benefit from all the legal rights associated with marriage, means that you believe you have an inherently greater right to marry than we have.

5. Really though, if all the heterosexual Democrats in the nation, or even half or even one fourth of the Democrats in the nation, all stood up en masse and filed for divorce, announcing that they were doing so purely in solidarity with queers' inability to marry the people they love, who knows what the sight of all those heterosexuals "living in sin" might SCARE the homophobic Bible-thumpers into agreeing to? (Note: I'm not really one of those who seriously advocates that all heterosexuals should refrain from opposite-sex marriage until queers get access to same-sex marriage, for the reasons explained here. Heterosexuals who are actively asking queers to stop demanding the right to marry who they love, however, are quite a different matter.)

6. 23% of the queer electorate voted for Bush. Granted, these people do have something seriously wrong in their heads. Even so, the odds of your getting them to vote for your candidate would be a lot better if your candidate didn't go around announcing all over the place that he (because it always is a he, isn't it?) doesn't believe they deserve the right to marry the person they love.

7. Just to summarize, in case you still haven't gotten the point: It's not QUEERS who cost you the election. Rather, it's HOMOPHOBES who cost you the election. Therefore, instead of ditching the queers and committing yourselves to extinguishing queerness from society, you need to ditch the homophobic presidential candidates and commit yourselves to extinguishing homophobia from the electorate. Including the red states. Understand?

Comments

[frankepi.livejournal.com]

yup.

[sammka.livejournal.com]

*claps*

It's interesting to see how many people have been saying "we need to ditch this one issue that isn't 'my problem' so that we can get Democrats elected and they can fight for my issues instead". Honestly if the Democrats dropped all the issues that people have been saying they should, I'd start voting Republican. It seems hard for some people to get that the issues they consider marginal are actually *central* to many others.

We don't need to ditch stuff to pick up more electorate, we need to come up with better arguments and make more people agree. Whatever happened to actually changing people's minds, instead of just pandering to their prejudices? It's just harder than sticking to one's own principles, I guess.

[ksuzy.livejournal.com]

Frankepi linked to your post, and I wanted to reply to it. You just described my husband. He came home from school on Wednesday with this idea not that Democrats are going to have to calm down, but that gays are going to have to stop demanding so many rights because society isn't ready for it. He and I got into a HUGE argument about it. This issue has been dividing us more and more lately. But that's because he's heterosexual... and I'm not. At the same time, I have several gay and lesbian friends in the department on campus who aren't so hard on Kerry-- they feel he's not really anti-gay marriage in his heart, but he had to compromise in order to appeal to more moderate Americans. I am disappointed by that approach. I feel it's a sell-out and little will be accomplished by that approach. I agree with you that Democrats should stop trying to appeal to the "middle." There was very little difference between Bush and Kerry on that issue. Bush supports an amendment to the Constitution, but he knows it can never pass. Kerry doesn't support gay marriage (in public). So where's the discrepancy? I thnk Democrats should develop a strong case for exactly WHY they support gay marriage and stick to it and not be afraid to stand up for it. Just my opinion... Hem-hawing in the middle and trying to pretend like the issue just doesn't exist until the Republicans bring it up DOESN'T WORK.

[interjections.livejournal.com]

This is such common sense that it's sad that so many people need it spelt out for them. That said, you wrote this very well and I don't see how anyone could argue against what you said.

[pixiegrrrl.livejournal.com]

Well said.

[donutgirl.livejournal.com]

well said, especially the stuff about winning over the "red states" rather than just running away from them, susceding from them, or bombing them, which is what most liberals these days seem to want.

[starstealingirl.livejournal.com]

Amen. I'm sick of being made to feel guilty because I fought for equal rights. Actually, I didn't even do that-- I just fought to keep myself from being treated like more of a second-class citizen than I already am. Just because I was scapegoated doesn't mean it's my fault, dammit.

[pomobarney.livejournal.com]

You've said much more politey the exact thoughts (http://www.livejournal.com/users/pomobarney/283316.html) that have been running through my head since Wednesday morning.

lesson 8

[cheeser1.livejournal.com]

i might add this one:

stop calling it "gay marriage." marriages aren't gay, and people who wish marry without gender-bias aren't necessarily gay either.

Re: lesson 8

[theobscure.livejournal.com]

I find a good way to counter this is to use "gay married" as an adjective or verb, and constantly, when discussing all marriages where same-sex unions are an issue.

And Gayle: Thank you. Democrats are supposed to be on the side of the oppressed, always. That's why they're Democrats, for crying out loud.

I am tired of dealing with people who think that change is something that will just happen if they sit around and wait patiently enough, instead of something that has to be made.

Re: lesson 8

[chisparoja.livejournal.com]

i think from now one we should respond by talking about marriage and straight marriage. :p

[spee.livejournal.com]

i hadn't heard many Democrats complaining about this specifically -- most of the ones i know squarely blame the religious right and their ridiculously wrong ideas.

but i wonder if the Republicans would be so keen on referring to their party as the part of Lincoln if they were aware of this:

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=57979

one of the funniest bits of minor graffitti i ever encountered was scribbled subtly on a railing in my neighborhood: "if you read this you're gay." my friends and i found this to be very funny. i can just imagine some homophobic idiot walking by, reading it, and feeling simply mortified. serves 'em right. stupid head!

[(Anonymous)]

Hi, Gayle, my name's Glenn, I live in NYC, and linked to you from Frank's journal. I spent the last two weeks of the election in Dayton, OH. As soon as I saw there was a so-called "gay marriage" bill on the ballot, I knew it was just to get out the Crazy Christian vote. I never dreamed it would cost us the election.

For all the Democrats, professional pundits, partisan hacks, etc., that you see on TV who say we need to be more Republican, there are many more of us who are reacting in an opposite fashion, and more determined than ever to stick to our principles. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to in the last week who wonder what would had happened if Dean had gotten the nomination.

But to your point about marriage. I think the problem lies in the word. People associate it with religion. Also, it allows politicians to hide in the separate but equal language of "domestic partnership" and "civil union." Not only did Kerry always support this, but even Bush claimed to in an 11th hour interview even though there was a plank in his party position specifically stating the opposite. My solution is to get rid of marriage, at least as far as the government's concerned. I think the homophobes would have a lot of wind taken out of their argument if all couples were domestic partners. As a heterosexual married person, I have doubts about your mass divorce scenario, but I'd happily trade in my marriage licence for a domestic partnership statement. That way, marriage can be completely a private sector thing and whatever your church, coven, commune, cult, etc. chooses to define it as.