Putting Party Ahead of Equality

A commentary - the opinion of the author

Timothy Kincaid

August 15th, 2007

Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani has had a historically supportive relationship with the gay community. This has been evident not only in his mayoral politics but also within his activism within the Republican Party.

There is some criticism now that claims that Giuliani is sacrificing his moderate positions to appeal to more conservative elements within the Party, but it is indisputable that he is by far the most pro-gay candidate on the GOP side. And he has been subjected to a great deal of criticism from social conservatives who believe that theocratic ideology trumps fiscal policy or good government.

But what are we to make of gay people who seek to harm Giuliani’s chances in the primary?

Some argue that a more conservative Republican candidate is easier to beat in the general election while a moderate might appeal more to the populace and might beat a Democrat. They further claim that a Democrat, any Democrat, is better for the goals of the gay community than any Republican and that any efforts towards weakening the Republican nominee is justified.  While I disagree, I don’t fault those who have thoughtfully come to this conclusion. 

It was in this mode of thinking that a Democratic Party activist, Ryan Davis, created a UTube video called Gays for Giuliani.  But Davis went beyond seeking to harm Giuliani, he was willing to trash his community to do it.

Nothing in this commentary should be construed as apologetic for Giuliani.  Nor do I suggest that harsh criticism of his reversal on some policy position is not warranted.  But this is not the way to do it.

There are five things which I find nauseating about Davis’ irresponsible production.

1. The premise behind this effort is that Republicans will be punished for supporting gay equality, if not by anti-gay conservatives, then by gays themselves. Davis’ efforts remind any Republican that is in some position of authority out there that any effort to be fair and equitable to their gay constituents can be used against them in the future – so they’d better oppose the local non-discrimination ordinance.

If you happen to be in a city where changing one Republican councilman’s vote would make a difference, you know how damaging Davis’ video is. And this is especially harmful in that this is not just some right-winger screaming about “pandering to the homos”, it’s gay people punishing a politician for their support.

2. This is a gamble that is far too dangerous to make. We have no reason to believe that Fred Thompson, or some other conservative, would not become President if they were the nominee of the Party.

There is no question that Giuliani is not hostile to our community. Some might argue – based solely on history – that he would be as supportive, or more so, than Hillary Clinton. To seek to harm the nomination of a pro-gay moderate so as to favor an anti-gay conservative could have disastrous results for our community’s efforts at achieving equality.

3. This video plays on the worst stereotypes. It seeks to portray gay people as selfish and hedonistic and flamboyantly effeminate. 

4. This video mocks the very rights and equalities that our community fights so very hard to achieve. In a week in which we hear about long-term committed partners trying desperately to have their relationships honored, Davis mockingly said:

“I am also so grateful to Rudy for the Domestic Partnership Plan that he has implemented in this city because I have had no less, no less, than five domestic partners.”

Those of you out there who are hoping for the opportunity to have a plan like NYC’s implemented locally know that this sort of language only serves to convince on-the-fence policy makers that gay people are only playing at relationships.

5. Some in our community are willing to put the goals of the Democratic Party above the goals of our community. The Advocate, for example, interviewed Davis and rather than call him on the harm that he’s doing to our quest for equality praised him for his activism. In answer to the sole question about “a few LGBT people [who] have misinterpreted your PSA”, Davis said:

“It’s not supposed to make [gays and lesbians] feel better about our place in the world—it’s supposed to help keep Rudy from getting the Republican nomination and becoming president.”

Well, sorry Advocate and sorry Ryan Davis, but keeping Giuliani from the Presidency is not my goal. Achieving a society in which we have equality is my goal.

I find your goal to be despicable.

UPDATE:  Ryan J. Davis has graciously responded to my criticisms on his myspace page.  Perhaps not surprisingly, his responses changed neither my opinion about his tactics nor my impression about his maturity. 

David

August 15th, 2007

Ryan Davis just proves something that eveyone should already know: You don’t have to be a heterosexual to be a jackass.

notverybright

August 16th, 2007

Everything you say is spot on. See my interview of Davis and the damage he’s doing here. http://notverybright.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/gays-and-giuliani/

Disappointed in Rudy

August 16th, 2007

How exactly is Rudy better on gay rights than any other Republican? Sure, he opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment, but so does John Mccain.

He has repudiated his past support for civil unions, ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and federal hate crimes legislation (the latter according to Bill Simon). He still supports domestic partnerships, but then, so does Newt Gingrich. I trust that he will veto all and any gay rights legislation.

Incidentally, Mccain might well be more liberal on gay issues than Rudy. He said, some time ago, that he neither supports nor opposes civil unions. Rudy opposes them.

Trust me, Rudy will be a great president for the theocrats. Already, he has promised to appoint Scalia/Thomas-like judges, and the next president will probably get to nominate 3 or 4 more judges. Do you know what that would do to the country? It would be better to have a Fred Thompson, who is in my opinion unelectable.

Disappointed in Rudy

August 16th, 2007

For the record, I am not anti-Rudy. I would gladly vote for Rudy is he had kept his support for abortion & gay rights, and would nominate mainstream judges.

Timothy Kincaid

August 16th, 2007

DIR,

I understand your concerns and don’t disagree. However, I think you share some of Ryan Davis’ misperceptions.

From what I have read, he has not exactly repudiated his past support for civil unions. Rather, he has qualified them to be something less than equality (oh goodie). And, incidentally, McCain opposed federal marriage amendments but endorsed his state’s – and (if I recall correctly) it was one of the “and incidences thereof” amendments.

And on DADT, Giuliani didn’t really answer the question in the debate. Instead he talked about “now right now while we’re at war”. Perhaps he has at some other venue but I am unaware of it.

I know this sounds like quibbling over details. But I’m not trying to justify Rudy; I’m trying to be a bit more accurate.

And for what it’s worth, I too am disappointed. And I don’t necessarily think it’s smart politics. I don’t think flipflopping will gain him any votes and it might cost him his most ardent supporters.

Timothy Kincaid

August 16th, 2007

Notverybright,

very good interview

notverybright

August 16th, 2007

Thanks, Thomas. It’s sort of a Catch-22: Did I help by exposing his flawed thinking, or harm by bringing him more attention? I’m not sure, quite frankly, that he’s even worth all this. He hasn’t thought through it himself very well, and seems to be all about the publicity.

Timothy Kincaid

August 16th, 2007

He’s young. And unlike you, not very … well, you know.

WJZ

August 16th, 2007

“[B]ut keeping Giuliani from the Presidency is not my goal. Achieving a society in which we have equality is my goal.”

That’s great and all and I appreciate the commentary this site provides but if you want to sacrifice big issues (foreign policy, diplomacy, checks and balances, etc.) for the sake of a supposed stance on gay issues, you’ll inevitably do much more damage than Davis’ fast and loose politics.

Jim Burroway

August 16th, 2007

WJZ,

I agree completely. But since there is no specifically “gay” stance on diplomacy, checks and balances, social security, taxes (I’ll throw in a few more things that people care about), it would be odd for Timothy to address them on a site dedicated to examining specifically LGBT issues. IMO.

Alex

August 17th, 2007

This is a gamble that is far too dangerous to make. We have no reason to believe that Fred Thompson, or some other conservative, would not become President if they were the nominee of the Party.

In fact, there was some quiet rejoicing in some Democratic circles when Reagan won the Republican primary in 1980 because they were absolutely certain that he would be too old, too lightweight, and too wacky-conservative to win the general election. Look how well that worked out.

Gay Patriot

August 23rd, 2007

Gay Democrat Relies on Anti-Gay Stereotypes to Hurt Rudy…

In an interesting post linked this morning in the e-newsletter of Log Cabin of California, blogger Timothy Kincaid dissects a Youtube video by a group calling itself Gays for Giuliani. I had seen the video and assumed that those who made did not actua…

Alex Blaze

August 23rd, 2007

I’m late to the party, as always, but….

Timothy said:

“This video plays on the worst stereotypes. It seeks to portray gay people as selfish and hedonistic and flamboyantly effeminate.”

I certainly hope that that’s not meant to be a slight towards femmy guys. I think there’s a whole lot of courage in going out into the world in all your fabulousness and not caring what people think. I wouldn’t say that femmy guys are a bad stereotype, but an awesome part of the community who I just adore.

Also I don’t see the “hedonism”, the guy just said he had five partnerships, which implies 4 “divorces” (?) to me, and while his joke may have been that that’s a reference to hedonism (I don’t know, I didn’t think the vid was all that funny), I’m not going to sit around and judge anyone who divorces as being particularly “hedonistic”. Divorce is a wonderful thing in that it gets people out of relationships they don’t want to be in and have a right not to be in.

But maybe that’s just me being raised by a second-wave feminist, lol.

Jim:

Interesting thought that there’s no “gay stance” on those issues. I wonder if there’s a gay stance on issues like same-sex marriage, ENDA, the Matthew Shepard Act, etc. I don’t know if you read The Bilerico Project or not (I do read BTB! I do! I’m just late on commenting here!), but we’re pretty big on the expansive definition of “LGBT issues”, and for a reason – just because a law specifically mentions the queers or has a reference to sexuality or gender identity in it doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s a singular position for a queer to take on it. Likewise, just because an issue doesn’t mention the gays, sexuality, or gender identity in it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t affect us disproportionately. (Both those my humble opinions, of course.) So who’s to say what’s an LGBT issue and what’s not? (Honestly, and I think I’m going to post this tomorrow on my site, I’m thinking universal health care is the #1 LGBT issue right now. I’ll work it out.)

That’s probably the main reason I have a problem with the LCR’s, not that working to change the GOP on LGBTQ issues is a bad idea, but that their politics on the whole are generally abhorrent.

There! Nice to cyber-meet you both!

Jim Burroway

August 24th, 2007

Alex,

Welcome to the party.

Let’s take your example of universal health care. I most definitely do not believe that it is “the #1 LGBT issue right now”, although it do believe it is one of the top American issues.

I am privileged to be well-covered through my employer. It’s a major employer, and many of my gay friends there, in fact, are rather content with private health care and believe that the market place is the best deliverer of health care services. They tend to prefer marketplace solutions — tax code changes, health care savings accounts, etc. As a group, they tend to oppose government-run health care (on the supposition that this is the only alternative.)

Now are they any less “gay” than me for holding these positions?

On the other hand, I do believe that universal health care is a top priority, but I believe that because I see how a lack of access affects everyone, not LGBT’s.

This is where I’m coming from when I say that it is not big into such expansive definitions of “LGBT issues.” I’m not going to presume to define what all LGBT’s ought to support just because of my own political bent.

I part ways with LCR for many of the same issues that you mention. But I’m not willing to say that their position on health care is any “less gay” than mine.

And I’m most CERTAINLY not interested in allowing just one party to presume that they can count on us despite their lukewarm support for the truly LGBT issues: hate crimes, DADT, ENDA, etc.

Alex Blaze

August 24th, 2007

Oh, totally agree, Jim. I’m not saying that there is one singular appropriate LGBT stance on health care, etc. But I am questioning why that issue is not an LGBT issue (at least to most folks) and something like marriage or DADT would be.

You say that health care isn’t an LGBT issue because a lot of gays are already covered through their work and therefore oppose a single payer system, etc., as a possible replacement, and that doesn’t make them any less gay. But that same logic can be applied to any “LGBT issue”.

A good number of LGB’s will never get same-sex married and don’t see it as an an issue that affects them. In fact, many that I know don’t support marriage because it’s patriarchal, gives privileges to those in conjugal relationships that others can’t access, etc. Does that stance make them any less gay?

I know LGBT people who are against hate crimes enhancements because they believe putting people in prison longer is morally unjust. Does that make them any less LGBT?

I know some queers who are against the ENDA because they think that it won’t protect us in the least because it doesn’t allow disparate impact evidence and has so many loopholes that many people won’t be protected at all, and that’s if their employers don’t just fabricate another reason to fire them, and will just mask a real problem. Are they any less queer?

(For the record, those aren’t my stances on all those issues, but I can see where they’re coming from.)

“I’m not going to presume to define what all LGBT’s ought to support just because of my own political bent.”

Same here. I’m just wondering why it’s OK to define what “all LGBT’s ought to support” on those issues that specifically mention the gays, sexual orientation, or gender identity, when clearly there’s dissent.

Oh, and the reason I picked health care as an issue is that under the current system of distributing health care according to one’s job, financial means, or marriage to someone with a good job or financial means inherently disadvantages queers who can’t marry in most states and are discriminated against in their jobs. Just sayin’.

Jim Burroway

August 24th, 2007

Re: You say that health care isn’t an LGBT issue because a lot of gays are already covered through their work and therefore oppose a single payer system, etc….

Well, no. I say it isn’t an LGBT issue because of precisely the reason you stated: There isn’t a singular appropriate LGBT stance on health care.

Generally speaking, that’s not the same for marriage. The vast majority of gays regardless of political pursuasion support marriage equality even if they personally are lukewarm to the idea of getting married. I support repealing DADT even though the last place you’ll find me is in an army recruiting office.

Yes, there are some who oppose marraige because they think it’s “patriarchical”. But notice what’s happening here. They oppose marriage in general, and don’t see the point of fighting to support something they fundamentally oppose.

But even though they may hold such radical views, they will often say that well, if there is going to be such a thing as a “partiarchical institution,” nobody should be arbitrarily denied it. Besides, I think we’re talking about a very distincly tiny minority. There will never be absolute uniformity of thought on anything.

Same for hate crimes or ENDA, meaning that if you’re going to have such a law, then there’s not much justification for continuing to exclude sexual orientation. Whether the laws should exist in the first place is a completely separate debate, and one that I think ought to be a safe one to have inside and outside the LGBT community. If the debate were about whether any such hate crimes or ENDA-type laws should exist to begin with, then I think that becomes an American debate, and not necessarily an LGBTQ-specific one.

But that’s not the debate before us. Since those issues are being debated specifically because of the sexual orientation component of those proposals, by its very nature it becomes an LGBTQ issue. It’s safer, I think, to draw that distinction — with the understanding that there’s no uniformity of opinion. The fact that there’s not uniformity of opinion here is not distinguishing mark. It’s the specificity of sexual orientation to the issue.

But the issues with health care cut across all Americans. And so opposing universal health care, for instance (and let me reiterate, I certainly do not oppose it myself) does not automatically set one in opposition to the “gay community”, nor does supporting it become a litmus test for supporting the “gay community.” But by setting it up as an “LGBTQ issue,” it implies that it does.

I support universal health care not because I’m gay or because it resolves unique issues to the gay community. I support it because I’m an American health care consumer and I’m concerned about access to health care for all members of my community.

And besides, one could point out that if we had marriage equality and ENDA, that would go a long way towards ending some of the problems with access to private health care. I believe LCR would argue that market forces would take up the rest. I don’t believe it, not having seen it work before, but that’s their argument. Just sayin’. ;-)

Timothy Kincaid

August 24th, 2007

“I certainly hope that that’s not meant to be a slight towards femmy guys.”

Not at all. My taste in guys runs to femmy. But I don’t approve of artificially exagerated stereotypes. One of those guys looked more like a straight guy’s idea of a screaming queen – the sort of thing you used to see in stand-up acts – than an actual confident authentic femmy gay guy.

Alex Blaze

August 27th, 2007

I’ve been out for most of the weekend, and while a comments thread is far from polite conversation, I do know to respond when I’m addressed.

Timothy~

Cool, thanks for the clarification. Love the femmy guys myself too!

Jim~

I turned this thread into a post since I think we’re talking about something that would interest other (well, it at least interested Mike Rogers). Post is here, if you’re still interested in this topic:

http://www.bilerico.com/2007/08/whats_a_queer_political_issue.php

I’d love to hear what you think!

Also, Bil’s pulling a Jim Burroway and going to a Love Won Out conference in Indianapolis after being invited by a local fundie. That’s here:

http://www.bilerico.com/2007/08/a_challenge_accepted.php

Thought you’d be interested. Laterz!

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.