Toward Faith Restored
Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 05:49:17 AM PDT
I am a democrat, or more precisely a social democrat (little "s", little "d"), but since the summer of 2000 I have not been a Democrat. While my membership did not officially lapse until the spring of 2002 by my conscious failure to vote in the Texas Democratic primary, my decision to leave was made that summer watching the miserable implosion of the party into which I was raised into nothing more than a blob of spineless, timorous and equivocating double talk, virtually void of the fundamental values epitomized by two of the great but decedent lions of the party, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson, and apparently unwilling or unable to take up the great mantle of their legacy. In the seven ensuing years, I have proudly worn the label of being an independent, ashamed of the Democratic Party, all the while hoping the party would take up the gauntlet and restore my faith in its ability to lead and lead with conviction. My hope of a return in 2004 was dashed by the defeat and mockery of Howard Dean in the Democratic Presidential primaries and my resolve only hardened by cynicism and doubt of Democratic claims of leadership ability in the 2006 election cycle.
The last three election cycles I've been a guy at the race track, unwilling to place a bet on a dog in any qualifying heat, reserving just a small bet for the finale, but more than willing to offer my critique of the dogs in the preliminary races, but comfortable in my lack of investment in their outcome. I have heretofore taken the same approach to this year's Presidential race, skeptical that I'd hear much of anything that could or would compel my return to the Democratic Party. In watching parts of prior debates joint press conferences by the Democratic candidates, my skepticism has only been confirmed.
That said, what I saw last night on the Presidential Forum hosted by LOGO has allowed me to take a few baby steps toward faith restored.
As a gay man, words cannot describe my profound disappointment in the Democratic Party and its crop of candidates these last seven years. I haven't needed or required a candidate to be perfect on gay rights to earn my vote. Indeed my tepid support of Howard Dean in 2004 was despite his enthusiastic support of civil unions, a legal status I loathe as nothing more that the installation of "colored only" spouts of brackish water next to the well purified founts for whites only. This has only further pushed me towards a requiring a candidate to support same sex marriage to get my vote.
This political cycle has not seen much improvement. While all the Democratic candidates at the very least support civil unions, only two have had the courage to step forward and acknowledge the full humanity of GBLT people and our fundamental human right to the institution of marriage. Unfortunately neither has a snowball's chance in hell. I seen only four of them as capable of winning the nomination and the election and only three as viable of those are capable of earning my vote next November.
It really bothers me that none of the four can get past the hump of civil unions to same sex marriage. Ofcourse privately they may well support same sex marriage, but lack any courage to say so publicly. None of them would dare suggest that interracial couples should have first been given "civil unions" before the general population became more comfortable with the idea of interracial marriage. Yet if that had been the solution, several states would have still had them up until a few years ago. In 1958, 94% of Americans opposed interracial marriage, a figure that had only dropped to 72% in 1968, the year after interracial marriage became legal in every state in the union. In fact it was not until 1991 that a plurality of Americans approved of interracial marriages 48% to 42%. That's 24 years after the Loving v Virginia case was decided by the Supreme Court. Same sex marriage enjoys much greater acceptance now while being illegal in 49 states than interracial marriage did in 1967 being legal EVERYWHERE. The notion that we can just go halfway and give gays civil unions though only reinforces that notion that we should not be equal, that we deserve to be second class citizens and for no reason that any candidate appears willing to explain. "They just don't get it!" I keep thinking to myself.
Last night didn't change that. "They just don't get it," I still say, "...but they atleast seem to be trying now." Obama and Edwards surprised me in that they were finally willing to admit they could see how gays could be trouble by this, but failed to explain the necessity.
Pprior to last night my scorecard of the major players had Edwards leading, Richardson teetering, Obama vacillating and Clinton incinerating. Edwards' theme of social justice, of ending the two Americas chasm has resounded well with me and was indeed why I chose to vote for John Kerry in 2004, but I have been very turned off by how he has chosen to position his view on same sex marriage. Richardson has had an impeccable resumé and exhibited leadership befitting a President of the United States, while in inextricably managing to fall into bouts of foot-in-mouth disease. Obama has impressed me with an articulateness and charisma far beyond his paltry two years of Senatorial experience, evoking the skill and potential of an LBJ. He has however also turned me off with the gratuitous pandering of his faith, something to which I am sensitive to after 13 years of George W. Bush (we Texans have been suffering longer than most of y'all). As to Clinton, while I find her performance in the Senate commendable, but unremarkable, I don't trust her and don't believe I ever can. Her propensity to throw whomever, but especially gays, under the bus whenever it is politically expedient has rendered her persona non grata to me.
As I watched last night I saw a level of poise on GBLT issues that candidates have not shown before. I've learned not to expect too much on real GLBT issues, but I still came away impressed, though what I did see was still incomplete. My thoughts on the three I'd still consider voting for come November.
Barack Obama
I was impressed. I felt very comfortable with his answers to all the questions except for the two I found most important. Both questions appeared to throw him off a bit and he failed to answer either completely to my satisfaction. The first was the "would you vote for same-sex marriage in the legislature" question. This is, to my mind, a very different question than whether you personally support same sex marriage or whether you would vote to give same sex couples all the legal rights and incidences of marriage, albeit under another name. This lead into the second question he didn't answer completely, that his solution is tantamount to separate but equal Jim Crow laws. I can understand how he would support the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act prior to fighting anti-miscegenation laws in 1961. Employment discrimination against blacks was common and blacks were largely disenfranchised...but a black could marry a white in over 30 states. The comparison today is not apposite. Gays can vote in all 50 states and a significant number of states do have employment non-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation. But only one state permits same sex couples to marry. As important as ENDA is, the right to marry and repealing DOMA are much more important. I found it very ironic how he said ENDA would be important to the daily lives of GBLT workers failing to see the big picture that marriage and all the little things entailed to it are far more important. The statement that saved him was that he at least understood and could be sympathetic how gays might be troubled by his hypocritical separate but equal stand. That is progress. I'd like to know from him whether he would have found it acceptable for Virginia and the 17 other that barred interracial marriage in 1961 when his parents married to create civil unions for interracial couples instead of marriage and whether it would be constitutional for a system of civil unions for such couples to persist to this day. Obama's Grade: B+
Bill Richardson
Frankly I don't give much of a flip about his use of the slur...so long as it was an isolated incident. I don't think that is who he is. It didn't paint a picture of a homophobe like the stories of a college age George Allen, who later met with CCC leaders as governor who gets caught using a slur against his opponent's volunteer at a political rally. That paints a picture. A flippant remark on a crude radio show doesn't leave me with the impression of him being a homophobe. However, like Barack Obama, he left me comfortable with his answers to most everything except two. He was asked if the New Mexico Legislature passed a same sex marriage bill, would he sign it. After a long pause, he starts talking about pushing to expand domestic partnerships and working towards what is achievable. But the question presupposes that achievement. It supposes that the legislature has passed a marriage bill, not a partnership bill or a civil union bill. The question is do you sign, veto or pocket veto. Again, its not a question of whether you personally favor same sex marriage. It is whether you, in your sworn duty, feel compelled to sign it. Implicit in the question is the consent of the governed, presupposing the vulgar notion that the fundamental right to marry is subject to majoritarian consent. As I understand his answer, as happened in California, he would target such a bill for termination even though two elected bodies representing a majority of the people of a state gave their consent. But it was his answer on whether homosexuality is a choice that left me steaming. My jaw dropped at his initial answer. An equally shocked Etheridge then gave him a generous opportunity to hear the question again and clarify his initial response and he still managed to fumble it leaving me to wonder if he's ever pondered that question and if he hasn't why not. His only saving grace is my own feeling that whether it is a choice or not ultimately means little. If science made it possible for a person to change their race or ethnicity, would discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity become permissible since a victim of such discrimination has the choice of simply changing race or ethnicity to avoid the ill effects? I think not. So why then would it matter for sexual orientation. Richardson's Grade: C-
John Edwards
The apology for letting his faith be interjected into his position on same sex marriage was well received. I think it was heart felt and like Obama, recognized the fact that same sex couples have a legitimate complaint that civil unions are not equal on the very basis that they are separate. But also like Obama, he doesn't answer why he supports civil unions over marriage. I also liked how he immediately interjected the connection to ENDA in the discussion of Susan Stanton and how he was the one to bring in the discussion of the hardships faced by many GLBT youth some being completely rejected by their own families and made homeless. Ut is an issue all-to overlooked, especially given estimates that 30% of homeless teens are GBLT. He continues to speak from the heart and did nothing to diminish his standing with me. Edwards' Grade: B+
This forum really brought out a side of the candidates that I don't the prior debate formats would have made possible. For me though, it was a good thing. To say I have been disillusioned by the Democratic Party would be an understatement, but I am willing to recognize the candidates move in the right direction. Will any of the big four cross that bridge and endorse same sex marriage? I very much doubt it. Its a step forward, but still not far enough.
I know many people probably don't view LBJ as a hero, especially because of Vietnam. But even on racial justice, his legacy is not viewed as very heroic. His use of racial epithets is a matter of record and at times earlier in his career appeared reluctant to push forward with civil rights legislation giving only mild support. But I think it is more complex than that. LBJ was a Southerner and there is little doubt that respect for African-Americans was not a widely held community value anywhere in the South. I have no doubt that LBJ was to a certain extent a racist...but knew he shouldn't be. He knew he was unlikely to change given how the racism around him had infected him as it had the generations of the South before him and that nothing was going to change until someone mustered the courage to do what was right even if it meant going against everything that they have been conditioned to believe. Johnson was responsible for the 1957 Civil Rights Act and when the 1964 act was filibustered, he worked behind the scenes basically ordering Sen. Humphrey to capitulate to any reasonable demand on the bill from Everett Dirksen and allow Dirksen to be the hero of the day in achieving cloture and securing passage of the bill. Johnson did so knowing that he was likely signing the South over to the Republicans. I don't see that kind of courage today from the Democrats. None of the Presidential candidates have shown such a willingness to lay it on the line.
As much as I'd like to be a Democrat, I can't so long as I'm embarrassed by the party's record on issues so close and personal. Its like a black being given the choice between a party of "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation for as long as we feel like it" and a party of "Repeal the 13th Amendment and bring back slavery." Neither is an acceptable choice even if one is less evil than the other. While I saw a glimmer of hope last night, Democrats have a ways to go before my faith in the party can be restored and I can once again say I'm proud to be a Democrat.
Permalink | 4 comments