iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Gay Voters Angry At Democrats Could Sway Election

Gay Vote

TAMMY WEBBER   10/24/10 03:38 PM ET   AP

CHICAGO — Kate Coatar is seriously considering voting for Green Party candidates instead of Democrats, whom she normally supports. James Wyatt won't cast a ballot at all because he no longer trusts anyone to fight for causes important to him.

If Democratic candidates are counting on long-standing support from gay voters to help stave off big losses on Nov. 2, they could be in for a surprise.

Across the country, activists say gay voters are angry – at the lack of progress on issues from eliminating employment discrimination to uncertainty over serving in the military to the economy – and some are choosing to sit out this election or look for other candidates.

President Barack Obama's hometown of Chicago, with its large, politically and socially active gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, offers a snapshot of what some are calling the "enthusiasm gap" between voters who came out strong for Obama and other Democrats in 2008 and re-energized Republican base voters, including tea party enthusiasts who say they are primed to storm the polls.

It didn't help that the controversy over the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays erupted less than two weeks before the election, when a judge overturned it, then Obama's justice department decided to fight the judge's decision. On Thursday, the Defense Department declared that "don't ask, don't tell" is official policy but set up a new system that could make it tougher to get thrown out of the military for being openly gay.

"It's all talk and nothing's happening, and I'm just over it," said Coatar, 62, a church business manager who said she's as concerned about health care and homelessness as about gay issues. "I don't know who to vote for and the election is a week away."

Wyatt, 35, a maintenance worker at the Center on Halsted, a community center serving Chicago's GLBT community, said politicians only court gay voters at election time.

"Once they're elected, they're not fighting for things like civil unions or same-sex marriage or ending 'don't ask, don't tell' because they're hot-button issues," said Wyatt, who usually supports Democrats. "We're just used as a piggyback for them to get into office. It's absurd."

Whether or not that's the case, Wyatt isn't the only one who feels that way.

And in places like Cook County, Ill., where the gay population represents about 7 percent of voters, that could mean the difference between victory and defeat in some races, said Rick Garcia, director of public policy for Equality Illinois. One of those races is a much-watched and close battle for Obama's old Senate seat between Democrat Alexi Giannoulias and Republican Mark Kirk.

"If (candidates) can mobilize the gay community and get them out to vote, it could make all the difference in the world in some of these key races," said Garcia.

But volunteers who've been calling the 18,000 or so members of Equality Illinois to urge them to vote have been getting an earful. Many members say they won't vote or will vote against incumbents, regardless of their party affiliation or stance on gay issues.

This year's election is a stark contrast to 2008, when the gay community turned out in droves to elect Obama and help Democrats regain control of Congress.

"People were clamoring and very excited about the change that then-candidate Obama promised America," Garcia said. "Now I see lethargy at best and disgust at worst."

He said gains won under Obama, including in fighting housing discrimination, have not filtered out to many in the gay community because "the big issues have not appeared to change at all."

"But change takes time; sometimes it takes a lot of time. A lot of folks just don't understand that," said Garcia. "I am older and more seasoned, but most people are very disturbed with the administration ... and they're the hard ones to get out to vote.

"The message is huge: Don't take us for granted."

Tracy Baim, publisher of Windy City Times, Chicago's oldest and largest GLBT newspaper, and author of the new book "Obama and the Gays," said disappointment is showing up in another way: Some are refusing to donate money to candidates until they see progress, although it's difficult to gauge how much that has affected fundraising.

A message left Friday with the Democratic National Committee seeking comment was not immediately returned.

But many gay organizations are working hard to get voters to the polls, fearing they could face setbacks if Republicans retake control of Congress. Baim said Democrats and Obama still enjoy widespread support in some parts of the gay community, particularly among African-Americans and Latinos, and she believes the majority still will vote.

"People are disappointed but understand that this really is the best hope for significant change over the next several years," she said. "But at the same time, the anger is very real."

Robin McGehee, co-founder and director of the national gay-rights organization GetEQUAL calls the mood among gay voters a "disappointment canyon" but said they have no choice but to go to the polls.

She, however, is refusing to donate to or volunteer for any candidate this year. And members of her group are protesting wherever Obama appears on the campaign trail.

"We can't not take advantage of the right to vote, but that doesn't mean we can't vote smartly," said McGehee, of Fresno, Calif. "If I was a leader in the Democratic Party, I would be worried.

"Either we're important enough to fight for our equality or we're worth losing," she said. "Right now we're being treated like we're worth losing."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
CHICAGO — Kate Coatar is seriously considering voting for Green Party candidates instead of Democrats, whom she normally supports. James Wyatt won't cast a ballot at all because he no longer tru...
CHICAGO — Kate Coatar is seriously considering voting for Green Party candidates instead of Democrats, whom she normally supports. James Wyatt won't cast a ballot at all because he no longer tru...
Filed by Adam J. Rose  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,179
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (26 total)
06:07 AM on 11/01/2010
I hope the gay community will realize that Obama is trying to ensure permanent, rather than temporary removal of DADT. You have no chance with Republicans. Your vote counts.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:01 PM on 10/26/2010
Anyone believing stories like this are suckers. This is pure propaganda. State the opposite of the truth to try to sway the voters. Who would fall for this?
11:43 AM on 10/26/2010
Obama had a chance to get all Gay voters on his side and WHIFFED on DADT

He could have been FULLY for it publicly yet did not do so
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bronxboy47
Old Enough To Know Better
01:18 AM on 10/26/2010
It sickens me every time I hear a fellow gay claim that gays are the new Blacks. African-Americans fought and died for this country during two World Wars, while still second class citizens. And they were still fighting for equal rights 20 years after the end of WW2. Some of you guys can't even bring yourselves to hold your nose and vote democratic, even if not doing so turns the country over to fascist ideologues who will do their damndest to drive the entire country over the cliff. New Blacks my ass! You're punks!

More


Show user's profile


Mark comment as offensive


URL of this comment


Get a widget like this

Like this comment? [yes] [no] (Score: 0 by 0)
Community assigned karma score: 0 by 0
11:17 AM on 10/26/2010
I think we also need to be careful not to stereotype the LGBT community at large based solely on the comments of a few misguided individuals, who think abstaining or splitting the ticket and voting third party is going to solve their problems.

I know A LOT of gay people, and not a single one of them intends to stay home November 2nd or cast their vote for someone like Carl Paladino, Sharon Angle, or Christine O'donnell.

None of them.
10:25 PM on 10/26/2010
Gay people (who are still legally second class citizens) fought and died in both World Wars as well.

In the end, we (the gay and black community) are fighting for the same thing - equality. We (the gay and black community) will never achieve that if we don't support each other in our struggle. Fighting only weakens both our fronts. Keep the end goal and mind.
03:23 AM on 10/27/2010
Gays only fought in the wars if they were in the closet. Once they were outed they were discharged from the military. Homosexuality was never tolerated in either World War or in Korea or Vietnam. I served in Vietnam and am a witness to this reality. This kind of discharge was commonly known as a section 8 discharge for sexual perversion. Such people were considered unfit for military service because they would be in a position to make unwelcome advances and to make the other men uncomfortable. It is not a wise policy to irritate others who are carrying a lot of deadly weapons and who are trained to kill.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bronxboy47
Old Enough To Know Better
12:43 AM on 10/26/2010
You fellow gays out there who want to claim to be the new Blacks, how about emulating them and put this country's interests ahead of your own?
10:20 AM on 10/27/2010
Actually, in the South, people like gay white men better than straight black men.

Small victory, I suppose.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bronxboy47
Old Enough To Know Better
12:14 AM on 10/26/2010
African-Americans were still fighting for their civil rights 20 after World War Two, in which they served and died while still second class citizens. According to some angry gays, they should have stayed at home and refused to fight. Why? Because they should have realized they were Blacks first, and Americans second. Now, many gays are saying let the country fall into the hands of those who would outlaw our very existence given half the chance, and let the whole country go to hell, because we're gays first and Americans second. As long as we remain second class citizens, we don't give a shit what happens to the rest of the country.

Grow up!
11:14 AM on 10/26/2010
YOu need to tone down the @nger and r@ge a bit sweetheart, as it's really not good for your overall health.

Whoever coined the phrase, "Gay is the new black" was wrong; that being said, as a biracial female who looks more black than she does caucasian, I can tell you that there are MANY, MANY parallels between the civil rights struggle of the last century and the one currently being waged for LGBT equality.

There doesn't need to be a direct comparison drawn. Nobody that I know of ever said race and sexual orientation were synonymous.

Gay rights ARE civil rights. That's all that needs to be said. We don't need to compete for the crown in some "Most oppressed minority pageant."

With respect to the voting aspect of your post, I agree 100%. You might not be head-over-heels in love with the Dems, but the alternative is downright scary.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bronxboy47
Old Enough To Know Better
07:05 PM on 10/26/2010
Sorry about the anger, but I've just come off a two day pitched battle over at Joe.My. God with some of my intransigent--and dare I say, bigoted--gay brothers and sisters (some of whom could possible be GOP trolls) who say they are determined to show their displeasure with the Obama administration by not voting, or even voting republican!

I agree, gay rights are civil rights, and we must keep our eyes on the prize, not throw in the towel in a fit of pique when we're so close to reaching our goal. We have every right to be outraged, but we can't let our anger cloud our political judgment so that we make disastrous decisions. All I'm sayin'...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ZiloRS
12:34 AM on 10/27/2010
Sadly, with the crowd on HP that is against gay rights, the only thing that even slows their hateful posts is to remind them of how blacks were treated not that long ago. I think that's why a lot of people invoke the oppression of blacks and use the "Gay is the new black" statement. You have to understand just how bigoted Americans are and how distasteful racism has become (thankfully)...sometimes you have to remind them of the hold outright racism had on the public to get them to see the parallels.
10:38 AM on 10/27/2010
Wow. You're like the NAACP chapter at UofHouston that use some of worst language imaginable to describe gay students like myself.

Of course, my family probably owner your ancestors.
11:07 AM on 10/27/2010
-owned
07:24 PM on 10/25/2010
Just a little something for all the scores of patronizing straight people out there who insist the gay community is anti-Democratic, anti-Obama, or thinks apathy is a good political strategy, I'd like to direct your attention to this WONDERFUL PSA from LGBT advocacy group SAVE Dade:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94YC2cq6r3Y

Pass it around to your friends!!!
07:23 PM on 10/25/2010
Really Huffpost? You'll allow some 500+ biting comments scapegoating the gay community for political losses that haven't even occurred yet, but you won't allow me to post a video to a LGBT rights organization who puts out a positive voter initiative message?

That makes a lot of sense.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LynnW49
"A great democracy must be progressive." TR
04:33 PM on 10/25/2010
We ought to consider that maybe not voting, or voting for Green candidates, but certainly not voting Democratic is a better longterm strategy than we think. Continuing to reward Democrats who have not helped to ensure that the 140+ year-old 14th Amendment applies to all Americans has shown itself to be, at best, a short term strategy: well, whew! we got them elected, it's a start; now we need only wait another decade or two for "justice for all" to apply to us.

Not voting could hand some elections to Republicans, and that is a hideous short-term effect. But rewarding Democrats defers positive results, too. It sends a message that no real action is required.

I am not saying what I will do with my ballot (there being no contest in my state anyway except at the local level), but I do regard my ballot as just about the only weapon I have in the face of Democratic indifference. My ballot is important, not just because I get a vote, but because I get to vote with integrity if I so choose. I ought to have the option to use it as part of a longterm strategy to let Dems know that they cannot always count on me to vote the big picture and wait, wait, wait. Because, either way, Republican or Democrat, there will be a long wait.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:03 PM on 10/26/2010
Could you please share with me which republican government has done a single thing to promote gay rights?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LynnW49
"A great democracy must be progressive." TR
11:33 PM on 10/26/2010
Not going to take the trouble. It is not relevant to my point.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
morefromLA
A fighting liberal and proud of it
04:28 PM on 10/25/2010
I say to ANY voter who voted Democratic in the last election, turn away at your and your nation's peril. However slow the progress has been (and given the massive problems inherited and the ongoing massive Republican opposition regardless of cost to country, that there is progress is remarkable) there would have been little or none under a McCain/Palin administration. Do you really want Republican led witch hunts in the House over Obama's birth certificate (and his right to govern) or a repeal of health care reform or a reconfirmation of DADT, or busy buzzing about hunting for a reason (any reason) for impeachment? There is no electable national figure more susceptible to progressive pressure than Barack Hussein Obama. Try pressuring Newt Gingrich or John Boehner or Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann or Karl Rove. Is that the national 'leadership' you want to entrust with the navigation of our nation? I hope not.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
take10
05:44 PM on 10/25/2010
No truer words have been written! Fanned!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:40 PM on 10/26/2010
Very nice post.
marilyn 63
LEVEL ONE NETWORKER
04:03 PM on 10/25/2010
okay Hp everything i have said is pending??
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
goodog
Honk if you believe in a public editor.
03:10 PM on 10/25/2010
Weird that this story appeared late last night as the main, when I saw it had only 58 comments and a blaring headline, but now it's nowhere to be found on the front page or even on the politics page.

I would love to know the decision-making that goes on behind these maneuvers. It sounds like a discrete kind of micro-targeting, and not just the intention to get a specific reader but also an attempt to avoid the larger readership. Very intriguing stuff.

Anyway, here's my favorite line, where Garcia said gains won under Obama have not filtered out to many in the gay community "because the big issues have not appeared to change at all."

The Millions of people NOT killed or displaced by an invasion of Iran is change that I, frankly, can believe in. Anyone who can't wrap their mind around that isn't qualified to vote.

I'm sorry, but when I weigh the delay of the repeal of DADT against the difference between bombing Iran (a la McCain/Palin) and dialog with Iran (Obama's promise ever since the primary), there's no debate. I have NO flinching or wincing when I make that assessment about promises kept.

I weigh the lives of the millions who would be dead or displaced against those who are "really frustrated right now" and I come to a different conclusion than many of you do.
03:54 PM on 10/25/2010
Well, fortunately for us, you aren't the arbiter of the democratic process and such matters aren't decided by you.

Perhaps it disappeared because people grew weary of your persistent attempts at r@ce-baiting, scapegoating, and offensive stereotypes, such as telling members of the gay community that we aren't part of Obama's base, all in response to the comments of TWO PEOPLE from Chicago quoted in the article above.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
goodog
Honk if you believe in a public editor.
05:04 PM on 10/25/2010
I wouldn't call the 60% of LGBT people who voted for Clinton in the primary Obama's base.

I also challenge you to find anything anywhere where I even HINTED at race in regard to the 60% of LGBT people who voted for Clinton in the primary in opposition to Obama.

On the other hand, I'll cop to scapegoating, because I will look back at these people after Romney/Palin take office and roll tanks into Tehran, and I will say that those who sat home either bored or out of the frustrations of delay helped that to happen.

The millions of bodies and displaced people will be on the bored hands of frustrated progressives who couldn't think far enough ahead and connect the dots we are laying down now with the dots that will enrage us then.

If you're still here by then, you will be enraged when I say so, so don't feign surprise... unless your feigning now.

Case in point, I also admit that it offends the senses of some when I say that there are FauxGressives sponsored by the Koch Bros. Prosperity for America to flood fake progressive ire throughout the comment section of liberal website.

To say it's not happening, as you seem to do, is a very suspicious tactic.
04:21 PM on 10/25/2010
Oh, you mean a specific reader like yourself, who in all likelihood, doesn't even know a single gay person in the *real* world, yet feels qualified to tell us all how we feel, and decide who should, and should not, have the honor of participating in elections, depending upon the extent to which they agree with you on various issues.

This thread is overflowing with the same clueless, patronizing, hete rose xist trip.e you've just written here.

Whatever inside line/keen insight you believe you possess into the average LGBT voter's mind is completely bogus/warped, as you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
goodog
Honk if you believe in a public editor.
07:35 PM on 10/25/2010
As for how qυeeɾ my sensibility may be, if I were typing this just blocks from the intersection of 18th and Castro, I would definitely not be the first deeply embedded denizen of the LGBT community to criticize the status quo of the gay gestalt or the activists who regularly speak for all the rest.

From And Castro For ALL to Gay Shame, from Arthur Evans to Michael Petrelis, there are scads of gay gadflies who regularly speak up and criticize the direction the gay community and the activists in particular are moving.

Political warfare between the Milk club and Alice, between Britt and Migden and Leno and Britt, between Act Up SF and Act Up Golden Gate, the rise and demise of qυeeɾ nation, the ever-ongoing in-fighting in the middle of the political heart of the gay community is deeply personal and scathing... so, no, my particular antagonism on this issue is not a dis-qualifier for membership in the gay community...

...whether I'm LGBT or not.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lordmi
02:36 PM on 10/25/2010
Please, wait for a while, friends.
It's not that easy.
On another hand , when Reps will win - Your issue would be in deepest ditch ever.
They would never give you any chance.
Never.
photo
BligeTheVOTE
a cute bunny gnawing on a wolf carcass
02:19 PM on 10/25/2010
MANY LGBTs recall the circular firing squads post elections in 94 and 04. BOTH of those elections HOMOBIGOTS on the RIGHT amped up hatred against us,(2004 it was even done by 2 Republican closeted men Rove and Mehlman putting 13 anti gay initiatives on battle ground state ballots.)
The threads here have a REALLY UNSAVORY taste that Democrats already want to choose LGBTs as the scapegoat after this election....regardless of any proof of whether we vote or not.
STOP...this pre-election rationalizing who you will BLAME after the fact...seriously turns US OFF....it's deja vu all over again.
02:14 PM on 10/25/2010
Ever since Rick Warren I've been reading about how gay issues are meaningless and how the gay vote won't sway elections and how our issues need to wait because Obama had more important things to worry about.

Well--either the gay population and their issues are too insignificant to worry about, or their are being set up as the scapegoat.

You can't have it both ways.

And for those of you who want to say "cutting your nose off" I'd ask two questions

1.) if these issues were being discussed about blacks, or catholics, or women, or asians, or jews, or redheads, or left handers--would we even be asking these questions?

and

2.) at what point would YOU draw a line in the sand and say "enough is enough"?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LynnW49
"A great democracy must be progressive." TR
04:10 PM on 10/25/2010
Thank you for mentioning Rick Warren as a milestone (millstone). That the President would give Warren the honor (December 17, 2008) of blessing his inauguration so freshly on the heels of Warren's work in helping to pass Prop 8 in California (November 4, 2008) was so remarkably disrespectful that it made me think: Is this the canary in the mine? Is the blindness to the harm caused by Warren and what he represents and the willingness to humiliate gay Americans so great that it will inform policies in this term? It was indeed the canary, and not just on gay rights, but on many other Obama reversals to come as Candidate Obama morphed into a different President Obama. At that time, Obama would not have chosen a racist minister, but it was okay with him to choose a homophobic one. I agree that the President and others would be behaving very differently if the issues were about racial minorities or religious groups.