Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, December 5, 2009
Homo Wait 'Till Next Year
Posted by Dan Savage on Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 7:54 PM
AP:
Two of Congress's three openly gay members said Saturday that the U.S. House is poised to pass bills to provide health coverage for the same-sex partners of gay federal workers and to protect all gay and transgender employees from job discrimination. Speaking to an international conference of gay politicians in San Francisco, U.S. Reps. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., and Jared Polis, D-Colo., said they expect a domestic partner benefits bill to come up for a vote by the end of the year and the employment bill to reach the floor early in 2010.
* Not being a cynical bitch with that headline. For sports fans—including gay ones—"wait 'till next year" is an expression of optimism.
3
Would the Republicans bother to filibuster gay rights bills? With the Healthcare bill, it makes sense: block the Democrats from doing anything useful, and curtail the only good parts of an otherwise dying bill, then claim that Health care reform didn't work, and Democrats made a muck of things. If they didn't filibuster, Democrats could coast by with a substantial reform, and claim copious political credit for doing something worthwhile.
With anything related to gay rights, though, Republicans know their base would only be more incensed the more the Democrats accomplish. Blocking the bill with a filibuster might bring them some extra credit, but probably not much more than simply voting against it.
This is assuming the Republicans still have their most basic political instincts left, instead of just loudly proclaiming their faith in Jesus Our Lord and voting No on anything that hits their desk. Odds are against that possibility, but only just.
With anything related to gay rights, though, Republicans know their base would only be more incensed the more the Democrats accomplish. Blocking the bill with a filibuster might bring them some extra credit, but probably not much more than simply voting against it.
This is assuming the Republicans still have their most basic political instincts left, instead of just loudly proclaiming their faith in Jesus Our Lord and voting No on anything that hits their desk. Odds are against that possibility, but only just.
4
Cynicism is more apt here than optimism, unfortunately. Not that extending health care benefits to federal workers is a miracle of 21st century civility anyway...but even this somewhat foregone conclusion can be fumbled and fucked by our feckless friends called Democrat.
8
GOP won't filibuster (there's no filibuster in the House anyway...)
It probably won't pass because Democrats will bail, if not the Republicans will relish a chance to get 'moderate' Democrats on the record supporting the Homosexual Agenda before the 2010 midterms.
It probably won't pass because Democrats will bail, if not the Republicans will relish a chance to get 'moderate' Democrats on the record supporting the Homosexual Agenda before the 2010 midterms.
10
Uhm... in the wide world of sports, "wait 'til next year" is a platitude said after a disappointing season. Which seems sadly appropriate.
11
@ 10 ftw.
Freedom from discrimination and harassment at work is hugely important. The obviousness of such a right makes it that much sadder that those outside of Washington are still waiting for Congressional action to have equal employment opportunies. I think it would be difficult to argue against a new federal anti-discrimination law, even for conservatives. Equal protection at work is no threat to marriage, just bigotry.
Freedom from discrimination and harassment at work is hugely important. The obviousness of such a right makes it that much sadder that those outside of Washington are still waiting for Congressional action to have equal employment opportunies. I think it would be difficult to argue against a new federal anti-discrimination law, even for conservatives. Equal protection at work is no threat to marriage, just bigotry.
12
"Two of Congress's three openly gay members said Saturday that the U.S. House is poised to pass bills to provide health coverage for the same-sex partners of gay federal workers and to protect all gay and transgender employees from job discrimination."
And then there's Barney Tom.
(He at least gets one thing partially correct: including transgenders would be a mistake. Excluding transsexuals, meanwhile, would be disastrous, as Frank believes they're one in the same the way paedophilia and homosexuality are one in the same. That is to say, not at all.)
And then there's Barney Tom.
(He at least gets one thing partially correct: including transgenders would be a mistake. Excluding transsexuals, meanwhile, would be disastrous, as Frank believes they're one in the same the way paedophilia and homosexuality are one in the same. That is to say, not at all.)
13
11
The Freedom of Association is hugely important. And included in the US Constitution. The publicly known behavior of employees reflects strongly on the image and essence of a business enterprise, especially small business. In an open free society small business owners would be able to consider employee behavior when making hiring decisions, and not be bound by majority groupthink and current political correctness fads.
The Freedom of Association is hugely important. And included in the US Constitution. The publicly known behavior of employees reflects strongly on the image and essence of a business enterprise, especially small business. In an open free society small business owners would be able to consider employee behavior when making hiring decisions, and not be bound by majority groupthink and current political correctness fads.
14
Everything happens painfully slowly on the Hill. This is often a good thing. For example, when a bunch of Republican assholes decide to come up with something like the "contract on America" in the 1990s, it is hard for them to push ahead while their supporters are all excited about finally making God, Inc. the president and taking an extra piss on poor people. And when something good is proposed, it's highly frustrating.
I think a lot (not all, but a lot) of the Obama frustration has stemmed from this; all that excitement after the election, followed by the reality of how laws get made in the U.S.
I think a lot (not all, but a lot) of the Obama frustration has stemmed from this; all that excitement after the election, followed by the reality of how laws get made in the U.S.
16
If I were an American Power Gay, I'd be very vocal about the lack of progress and I'd make it clear that my patience is not infinite. If gay marriage weren't legalized by the end of 2010, I'd LOUDLY start encouraging gays across the nation to vote Republican. Here's why:
It's unrealistic to think any party other than the Dems or Reps will run the US.
If the Dems get themselved elected by wheedling votes out of people whom they then leave in second-class-citizen limbo forever, well, then what the FUCK do the second-class-citizens have to gain by supporting them. It may be horrible to think of voting for the Republicans (I view them as spiritual atrocities personally) but imagine the reaction if the Democrats realized that gays & lesbians have FUCKING WELL HAD ENOUGH of playing all carrot no stick. The Democrats are laughing at a HUGE political contingent that they just take for granted. They think, "Where are the gays gonna go... to the Republicans... hahahahaha..."
So call their bluff. Otherwise equal rights is NEVER going to happen.
It's unrealistic to think any party other than the Dems or Reps will run the US.
If the Dems get themselved elected by wheedling votes out of people whom they then leave in second-class-citizen limbo forever, well, then what the FUCK do the second-class-citizens have to gain by supporting them. It may be horrible to think of voting for the Republicans (I view them as spiritual atrocities personally) but imagine the reaction if the Democrats realized that gays & lesbians have FUCKING WELL HAD ENOUGH of playing all carrot no stick. The Democrats are laughing at a HUGE political contingent that they just take for granted. They think, "Where are the gays gonna go... to the Republicans... hahahahaha..."
So call their bluff. Otherwise equal rights is NEVER going to happen.
17
#16 Your point is well made. I think the real challenge is that there are not enough concerned GLBT voters to really sway a national election. I hold the dim view that most GLBT Americans can't be bothered to get involved. The begging that GLBT organizations do to get people involves leads me to my conclusion. I could be way way off the mark here however and will concede that point should another example be brought forward.
18
For Cuban Americans it's what our grandparents say about returning to Havana, "Wait till next year!"
19
#17 - I bet there is a proportionately large percentage of ambivalence among LGBT populations but I think there is a much larger - and vocal - majority of LGBT Democrat fanatics that wouldn't dream of expressing outrage at what they perceive to be their Party.
The edges of that throng of DNC cheerleaders is beginning to fray for the first time in years (who would have thought Dan Savage or John Aravosis would make such strong statements about impatience?) but there really is a large iceberg beneath this tip.
Way too many LGBTs think they have (or they actually do have) too much invested in the DNC to actually participate in political tug-of-war in the only way a Party would be able to respond.
A vote for a Republican would be a distasteful and truly ludicrous betrayal. Support for (and obvious campaigning / promotion of) an alternate party candidate (or even another Dem, if that is possible) that is attractive, popular, and unashamed of touting progressive, liberal ideals would terrify the shit out of the Democratic Party.
THAT would scare the shit out of them. No one would really believe LGBTs would pick a Republican...but its entirely possible that enough of us might be drawn in to support a rogue of our own. As much as it may cause acidic regurgitation to admit, Palin has attracted attention from her ideological companions.
We need a Palin of our own.
The edges of that throng of DNC cheerleaders is beginning to fray for the first time in years (who would have thought Dan Savage or John Aravosis would make such strong statements about impatience?) but there really is a large iceberg beneath this tip.
Way too many LGBTs think they have (or they actually do have) too much invested in the DNC to actually participate in political tug-of-war in the only way a Party would be able to respond.
A vote for a Republican would be a distasteful and truly ludicrous betrayal. Support for (and obvious campaigning / promotion of) an alternate party candidate (or even another Dem, if that is possible) that is attractive, popular, and unashamed of touting progressive, liberal ideals would terrify the shit out of the Democratic Party.
THAT would scare the shit out of them. No one would really believe LGBTs would pick a Republican...but its entirely possible that enough of us might be drawn in to support a rogue of our own. As much as it may cause acidic regurgitation to admit, Palin has attracted attention from her ideological companions.
We need a Palin of our own.
20
@ 19 You seem to miss the point entirely. I agree that a vote for the Republicans would be utterly repugnant but THAT IS THE POINT. To loudly campaign AGAINST the Democrats but also to be very clear that it is being done in direct response to THEIR betrayal of their supporters is the point.
By spending all the energy you suggest digging up some alternative candidate who will never see the light of day anyway is just futile and won't get the Democrats off their asses. But if FOX started covering a group of high-profile gays who are very explicitly supporting the Republicans - this one time only - to SHOW the Democrats that they are PISSED OFF at being treated like shit... that might just be enough to bring about real equal rights for everyone.
Don't you see? The Democrats are LAUGHING AT their gay supporters, as I said earlier. Show them that being taken for granted has consequences.
Also, it's important to consider that there has never been a better "window period" to get gay rights enacted. If something doesn't get accomplished soon, the Republicans will slam that window shut at the first opportunity. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE.
By spending all the energy you suggest digging up some alternative candidate who will never see the light of day anyway is just futile and won't get the Democrats off their asses. But if FOX started covering a group of high-profile gays who are very explicitly supporting the Republicans - this one time only - to SHOW the Democrats that they are PISSED OFF at being treated like shit... that might just be enough to bring about real equal rights for everyone.
Don't you see? The Democrats are LAUGHING AT their gay supporters, as I said earlier. Show them that being taken for granted has consequences.
Also, it's important to consider that there has never been a better "window period" to get gay rights enacted. If something doesn't get accomplished soon, the Republicans will slam that window shut at the first opportunity. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE.
21
oh I see your point, but i don't agree with you entirely.
In the first place I don't believe that anyone would vote for a Republican instead of a Democrat for any reason - even if the gayest Republican in the world emerged. Even if Andrew Sullivan decided to run as a Republican.
Too many LGBTs are way too attached to the DNC to consider even entertaining (let alone campaigning for or giving money to) a true Leftie Dem or a 3rd party Palin-type. There is no way that anyone would seriously give a second thought to voting for any Republican as a way to show the Dems a lesson.
And, really, that idea sounds more like a way to help Republicans than to help any LGBT person anyway. I'd sooner shoot myself in the head while in the voting booth than vote for any candidate that is in play now. Imagine - Palin? Romney? Which asshole would be around in 2012 that is supposed to be a protest vote? No, sorry, we have to be smart but that doesn't mean make a poor choice. Vote with integrity not passive aggression.
In the first place I don't believe that anyone would vote for a Republican instead of a Democrat for any reason - even if the gayest Republican in the world emerged. Even if Andrew Sullivan decided to run as a Republican.
Too many LGBTs are way too attached to the DNC to consider even entertaining (let alone campaigning for or giving money to) a true Leftie Dem or a 3rd party Palin-type. There is no way that anyone would seriously give a second thought to voting for any Republican as a way to show the Dems a lesson.
And, really, that idea sounds more like a way to help Republicans than to help any LGBT person anyway. I'd sooner shoot myself in the head while in the voting booth than vote for any candidate that is in play now. Imagine - Palin? Romney? Which asshole would be around in 2012 that is supposed to be a protest vote? No, sorry, we have to be smart but that doesn't mean make a poor choice. Vote with integrity not passive aggression.
22
@21 You present very good points as well and it would be wonderful if integrity was enough but it just isn't. I say this with complete respect and sincerely: Good luck with that integrity thing. I hope the next generation of second-hand citizens and the generation after that can look back someday and take comfort in your integrity while they are being shit on by the people they vote into government. I concede the discussion and I appreciate your position.
23
@10, actually, at least in the case of Red Sox fans (pre 2004), it was traditionally, "There's always next year...!" (said in a tone of ironic despair)
24
@17
Depends on the national election. Remember it's a state by state thing complete with the Electoral College (for a Presidential Election).
In a case like that, New York, California, and Massachusetts would probably go Dem with or without the gay vote. Florida? Ohio? Oregon? North Carolina? Maybe the gay vote can be a deciding factor even now.
But I agree with you that our community is far to fratured now to exert that type of influence over the election. Though I do believe that we have the numbers.
Depends on the national election. Remember it's a state by state thing complete with the Electoral College (for a Presidential Election).
In a case like that, New York, California, and Massachusetts would probably go Dem with or without the gay vote. Florida? Ohio? Oregon? North Carolina? Maybe the gay vote can be a deciding factor even now.
But I agree with you that our community is far to fratured now to exert that type of influence over the election. Though I do believe that we have the numbers.
25
This bill will be in violation of DOMA, or at least as the Obama justice department interprets DOMA. Obama has seemed eager not to challenge the Constitutionality of DOMA, so my guess is that this will be scuttled after pressure from the administration. We've seen them apply pressure to prevent other pro-gay bills come to the floor, I don't see why this instance would be any different.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (25) RSS