Skip to main content

View Diary: Gay Americans & 9/11: On a Queer Day (214 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm not in disagreement with (0+ / 0-)
    anything you say there.

    I've always liked how Howard Dean dealt with the issue -- he always would just say that it's a civil rights issue and leave it at that.  

    As far as white males, well the fact remains that the Democratic Party has, for whatever reasons, lost most of them.  They're still overwhelmingly Republican, even though voting Repug means that most of them are voting against their own self interests.  

    Which is just bizarre, especially considering that right-wingers tend to, if anything, look out for their own self-interests above everything else.  

    They are all about property, and we are all about people, right?

    So why are they voting against their self interests?  

    One of the big reasons is that the republicans have managed to "brand" themselves as the party of straight white men.    The Republicans have convinced white men that the Democratic Party cares more about blacks, or gays, or prisoners on death row, or minks, or seals, than they do about, say, unemployed white men.

    I think it's an impractical use of political energy to politicize this issue unless we are already in power, which are most certainly are not.

    Furthermore, I live and work in Hollywood, so I don't see a lot of discrimination.  Maybe that's affected my views.  I know plenty of gay families and everybody treats them like any other family.   From this point of view, it seems inappropriate to single them out as victims of 9/11.   That's just my opinion.   Plus, I see the tide changing rapidly in society as far as acceptance of gays and lesbiians, due largely in part to Hollywood.   Every show seems to have a gay character now, there are shows that are just about gays, and I think Brokeback Mtn did a lot as well to move the bar.   I see that continuing to move forward, while to me, right now, politics is about stopping murderers from waging more wars, and stealing democracy by rendering our votes and our elections completely pointless, mere theater.    I think in the world in which we find ourselves, the wholesale slaughter of innocents around the world, and the loss of the rights of ALL OF US takes precedence over most other issues.

    Thanks for listening and for not troll-rating me so far.  :)

    We're seriously on the same side, just have a different opinion about the level of attention this one issue should have.  

    The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

    by theyrereal on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 04:44:25 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  gays (or blacks, or women, etc...) aren't why ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theyrereal, fiddler crabby

      Democrats have been losing white males (or at least a certain segment of them)

      I agree with part of your analysis... Republicans have successfully convinced a part of the electorate that Democrats don't care about people like them.

      But we lose voters when we fail to speak to their concerns, not simply because the other side plays the fear game better

      I think the Democratic party has a perception problem among working class white guys (I'm including many of my relatives and neighbours in this category) because we stopped talking about issues that were relevant to their lives, in ways that are relevant to their lives. That has allowed the Republicans to create the image of Democrats as white wine quaffing, Volvo driving, effete liberals unconnected to the realities of guys (and women) who work for a living. These guys aren't voting against Democrats because they think Democrats are pro-gay (they may not be thrilled about that, but that isn't what shapes their vote), but because they stopped hearing Democrats frame issues in a way that responds to working class/ middle class realities.

      A strong message about economics, about supporting communities, about education, about day-to-day issues impacting working people is what wins these people back -- not by backpedalling anyone's human rights.

      Think it doesn't work? -- I live in a town of a few hundred people in Vermont, a traditionally Republican town. But every election, Bernie Sanders kicks ass here -- he is as far left as you can get (on economic and on social issues), he's a Jew from Brooklyn, but he still wins the votes of VFW guys with gun racks on their trucks and right to life stickers on their bumpers. Why? -- not because he backs off on choice or gay issues or the war -- but because he talks convincingly about economic issues in a way that makes sense to these guys. They don't always agree with him, but they know he'll fight for them when it counts (be it for veterans benefits or against bad trade deals or for protecting farmers or whatever). With variations as appropriate to the local issues, that is the model for winning elections with working class votes.

      I've worked the night shift at a factory where the union went to bat for including sexual orientation protection in the contract -- the white guys (and they were 95% white) at that factory didn't flinch about that, cuz it was presented as what it was -- a way to protect people who work for a living.  

      And I understand your perspective from Hollywood that "everyone treats them like every other family" --but the whole issue is that while that may be true socially in Hollywood, it ain't true legally anywhere in the USA. The whole point of Terrance's diary was that there are real legal and economic issues that are unfair to same sex couples because of not having legal status. Survivor benefits, child custody, health insurance, etc are not merely nice extras -- they are bread and butter issues. And they impact working class gays and lesbians every bit as much as they do working class straights.

      You don't hear anyone here saying that the Democrats should go out and make gay rights the centre of an election campaign. But saying that it can' t be talked about (even in a progressive blog!) for fear of offending some voters misses the point -- if that is all we have to offer those voters, they were never going to vote for us in the first place. Democrats win when we shape the message and speak to voters about real concerns, not when we spend our campaigns responding to Republican fear mongering.

      Being pro-gay doesn't lose elections -- having no message that resonates with voters' real concerns is what looses elections.

      Once social change begins,it cannot be reversed. You cannot uneducate the person who has learned to read...You cannot oppress people who are not afraid anymore.

      by terjeanderson on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 05:20:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  have a "4" (0+ / 0-)
        You make an eloquent case.

        Maybe I'm completely wrong.   I'm usually the first to say that acting on your fears will create the very thing that you fear.   You see it everywhere.

        My practical streak takes over most of the time, and I see it as a practical issue as far as getting "our side" back into power.  

        Hell, we all know that if we had fair elections, Bush never would have gotten himself  in the office in the first place.  Max Cleland would never have been defeated.  etc. etc. etc. etc.

        The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

        by theyrereal on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 05:36:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As you say... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          you work in Hollywood.  I've been there.

          Partner™ and I were astounded by how it isn't a big deal there.  No rainbow flags, nothing... just men holding hands walking down the street.

          Try that outside of about a 10 mile radius of downtown Dallas... and you're asking for:

          • your tires slashed
          • your car keyed
          • a punch, slap, kick

          And in Texas, there is nothing to say that it's a hate crime at all.

          We can not all afford to live in California.  We do not all want to live in California.  I would instead like to be able to live in Texas in peace, with full legal rights and obligations.

          -TBD (-5.75, -5.59) "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." - Edward R. Murrow

          by Texas Blue Dot on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 09:22:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site