The Gays, The Dems, Some Serious Trouble, and Dough

There's a war brewing in the Democratic National Committee -- and, no, it's not about race. This battle, however, does involve another so-called minority group: the gays. And the results may cost the party some serious trouble -- and dough.

For those of you not paying attention, the drama started back in 2006, when former DNC staffer Paul Yandura wrote an open letter questioning the party's so-called queer commitment. The April 20, 2006 letter read, in part: "All progressives need to be asking how much has the DNC budgeted to counter the anti-gay ballot initiatives in the states... We also need to know why the DNC and our Democratic leaders continue to allow the Republicans to use our families and friends as pawns to win elections." Yandura's letter probably would have been ignored had it not been for one tiny detail: his domestic partner, Donald Hitchcock, headed the DNC's gay branch, the Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council. The proverbial pooh soon hit the democratic fan.

Hitchcock found himself in a tough position on April 27th, 2006, when gay weekly newspaper The Washington Blade published Yandura's letter. Less than a week later, on May 2nd, DNC chief of staff Leah Daughtry allegedly asked Hitchcock to step down. The long-time activist refused, but soon had no choice after Dean and company gave him the boot, which certainly makes one question the DNC's motivations. Were they getting political revenge a la Valerie Plame, or did they fire Hitchcock for his poor performance, as was later insinuated: "It was decided we needed a change. We decided to hire a proven leader." Hitchcock calls their explanation hog wash and has since filed a discrimination suit against the DNC.

In addition to the wrongful termination, Hitchcock alleges that the DNC paid him less than his straight counterparts. Hitchcock also claims that the DNC "punted" gay outreach to the finance department, which used gay voters for their cash, yet failed to make real legislative headway. The activist wrote in a February, 2007 letter: "...Lately we seem to be treated solely as an ATM for the party, with our civil rights seeming an afterthought or burden. After Gov. Dean became Chair of the DNC, two LGBT political positions were abolished, and two finance positions were added, for a total now of four positions in Finance and zero in Political. Given the meeting, it's obvious that we continue to be invited to the table, pay for the meal, but we are not allowed to eat."

Howard Dean's gay politics will certainly come under fire. The failed presidential candidate and doctor has long been criticized for dismantling the gay and lesbian outreach program, as well as for his contested comments on the Christian Broadcasting Network's 700 Club. A mere two weeks after Hitchcock's firing, Dean told the 700 Club and its pious audience that the Democratic party defined marriage as between "one man and one woman." The gays went wild. Not only did Dean's comments misrepresent the official party platform, which calls for gay inclusion and state-regulated marriage laws, but how could Dean appear on a program with such flagrant homophobic leanings? In an awkward attempt at damage control, DNC treasurer Andy Tobias, who also happens to be a homo, claimed that the DNC had been misled: Dean thought he was talking to ABC Family, not CBN. Tobias held this position until this weekend, when mounting evidence forced him to concede that he had been "misinformed." It's worth mentioning that Dean later apologized for his gaffe, saying the party does "take a firm stand on equality." He refused to say whether or not he supports same-sex "marriage." The current accusations, however, make one wonder if the former Vermont governor is simply pandering for the gay vote and, more importantly, the gay dollar.

I can't say whether Hitchcock's allegations are true, but recent evidence indicates a flippancy toward, if not flagrant disrespect of, the DNC's gay adherents. Queerty.com, which I also happen to edit, posted internal DNC emails last week in which lesbian deputy finance director Julie Tagen, Finney and new gay leader Brian Bond discuss working with the gay press. The exchange concerns The Washington Blade, which apparently rejected a story on the DNC's gay delegate training program. Hoping to get their story out -- and some journalistic revenge -- the aforementioned DNC staffers plotted to take the story elsewhere, particularly to one of the Blade's competitors. Utterly clueless about the gay publishing world, Tagen lobs the question to Bond, writing, "You probably have a better sense since I tend to use The Blade and other gay papers in the bottom of the birdcage." Not the kind of message one wants to hear from a DNC staffer, particularly because the DNC so readily touts its gay-friendly policies.

Gay voters, myself included, are torn: do we support the party that offers us at least nominal inclusion, or do we strike off and find a more independent-minded politico? More astute voters will realize, however, that we don't have much of a choice. The United States' plurality voting system tends toward a two-party structure. There are simply are no viable third party candidates who have the gays' backs. Sure, the Democrats may not be entirely evolved when it comes to gay rights, but they're really all we've got. I can only hope that the next few weeks of testimony and public scrutiny will set the party straight. If not, well, I may have to stop voting all together -- and nobody wants that. Except for the Republicans, of course...

Comments

[misswildthing]

In the meantime, Donald has to keep pushing the DNC to settle the suit and more bad responses keep coming from this process. What next, Howard Dean didn't know he was on the 700 Club? Oh wait, that was another bit of misinformation.

So Donald gets punished for something his partner says while they still can't get married and have all the rights as others in the District. How does this equality thing work?

[Justis]

Your predicament is not unique and is shared by all interest groups.

The trick is to recognize that your political power is not only commensurate with the size of your support, but also your willingness to withold that support, if necessary. Your power is diminished to the extent that your vote and money are a given. That's why politicians kowtow to certain groups and ignore others.

The fact that all the Democratic candidates sollicit the gay vote as much as they do should give you some idea just how much they need your votes and money, especially in these close races where a few votes can make a difference.

At the very least, you know Bill Clinton's dubious record. It's a fair assumption that his wife will do little more than he did if elected and perhaps less. You could force her to sponsor a bill NOW to overturn DADT, which she has stated she theoretically favors. Othewrwise, no support, period. You could do the same with Obama.

The alternative is to throw your money at them and pray.

[ksmithdcrrcom]

Here's the thing:
1) The only "choice" LGBT folks make is whether to be true to their inner selves. Society is littered with the broken lives of those who believed they could "choose" or "convert" themselves out of being LBGT.
2) The majority will NEVER hand over rights to a minority. Such rights must be demanded and fought for.
3) Please refrain from the term "gay marriage;" the correct term is "marriage equality" because the issue is about fundamental access to benefits, responsibilities, and protections afforded to heterosexual families but denied to homosexual families. I recommend Evan Wolfson's book, "Why Marriage Matters."
4) Alhough LBGT issues are very important to me, I worry more about the destruction of the Constitution, American imperialism and weakening middle class. I'm voting for Edwards because he strikes the right balance for me. We should be getting MORE engaged with the party to effect the change we want, not less.

[Bobla]

We can be more careful with our gay dollars, even in a two party country. At the risk of kicking off a debate on the candidates, Hillary represents the DLC--the corporate democrats bastion of the party and those who are more "pragmatic"--i.e., they take our money but will compromise on our issues. Other candidates are less tied to this group.

More importantly, focus our money on progressive candidates for House and Senate to build majorities that will bring bills to whoever is the president--as long as they are democrats. That will provide the transparency to discover who our true friends are and who take our money then turn their backs on us.

[ProudLiberalDan]

I hope I won't be banned for saying this, but the Green Party unequivocally supports gay rights and gay equality period. There ARE alternatives than being taken for granted and treated like an ATM machine.

There are also Democratic politicians who support gay marriage, particularly here in California. It's very important in the Primary to at least support Democrats who at least support Civil Unions.

Eventually, we will have legally and federally recognized gay marriage in this country. In the meantime, I am happy for Civil Unions as step towards that goal. I reject the "call it marriage" or nothing approach. Civil Unions means real benefits to real gay couples and families. There are some states which will recognize Civil Unions decades before gay civil marriage. This is progress and we should take it as such.

What I want is for the federal government to recognize the Civil Unions that are taking place, and to grant those 1,000+ rights, responsibilities and privileges that go to married straights to gays in civil unions.

Ideologically, I support the separation of church and state. Anywhere they are mixed is disastrous for both. I would have the state ONLY grant civil unions and leave "marriage" as a religious ceremony. In the meantime, I would allow straight couples to choose Civil Unions instead of Civil Marriage for themselves. That would assure the two institutions are equal.

My order of preference is (1) Kucinich, (2) Edwards. Clinton and Obama are minimally acceptable, but I am not supporting them as a first choice because of hers stances on the war in Iraq in her case and his weak health care proposals in his case.

To me the biggest disappointment is Giuliani. He strongly supported Civil Unions at one time and even lived with a gay couple for a time. I was really hoping he would run strongly in the Republican Party and say that anti-gay bigotry is unamerican. That was hoping for too much from any Republican.

[sonofloud]

I'm gay and I'm not torn....Hillary for President!

[Pdubya]

the fundamental problem with bigotry and racism is the application of utterly indiscriminate thinking to logically discriminate situations.

group-think boils the cauldren of racism, sexism, ant-gay thinking.

"we want our rights"

"no, we want our rights"


no, i want my rights. and they are the same as yours.

[eddiestardust]

Look, I don't personally care if you or anyone is gay, that is YOUR PERSONAL BUSINESS NOT MINE.
But, when you collectively lose an election because of YOUR "Right" to get married, and I and millions of Americans lost their jobs and or died in a war we didn't ask for, then you are the problem.

[saintgeorge86]

As a gay man, I cannot and will no longer support Obama knowing about the McClurkin gay-bashing tour. I do not vote on one this one aspect of my life, but YES equality is very important to me. Obama's actions highlights how hollow his assertion of only he being able to bring America together. Put simply some people ('ex-gay'McClurkin) are wrong and some of us are right, there would be no purpose for a 'dialogue' with these bigots- Obama is either delusional (my opinion), cynical or worse actually believes McClurkin

[avicenna]

As Trudeau eloquently stated - the gov't has no business in your bedroom. Nor should the gov't be deciding how "marriage" should be defined since in actuality it is a religious ceremony and means different things to different folks. Gov't should only be acknowleging the civil union of 2 people who have decided to live as a couple - for legal matters and recognition of family units. All dogmatic issues of "marriage" can lay at the foot of the church or faith that you have adopted as that which represents your world perspective. This is the only way to move on without all this incessant wailing and hand waving. In my opinion, marriage is fast becoming an archaic institution that was needed at a time when men and women filled 2 very different niches and social roles in society. Women gave up their identity and became an extension of her husbands chattle - totally dependent on him for her livelihood as she wasn't able to join the work force and her whole existence revolved around tending to the future brood while keeping the oven warm with fresh bread and apple pie. A committment between 2 adults need not perpetuate this kind of contract.

[huntercrenshaw]

lets be totally practical on this issue... not to down anyone else's beliefs, but a vote for Gravel or Kucinich is basically throwing your vote away. Neither will become the nominee. So, after ruling out the Republicans, who do we have to vote for? Obama or Hillary. Judging as how Obama has been only too willing to bring along McClurkin on his campaign trail, I would say the only option is Hillary. Lets be fair, BILL Clinton gave us "dont ask, dont tell", which was the absolute best he could possibly do at the time. At the time, it was better than nothing. Hillary Clinton has already promised to work towards establishing same-sex unions. Same-sex marriage will more than likely not happen in the next 4 years, so having a President that will at least take an applaudable step to establishing same-sex marriage is better than nothing. Deal with what you're given people. Vote Hillary and stop all this 3rd party or Republican nonsense.

[amberglow]

It's money that matters more than our votes--no more donations to ANY national organization that doesn't FULLY SUPPORT US. Nothing to any of them--including the DC GL Orgs that do nothing for us.

[amberglow]

We should support truly progressive local candidates--and Edwards (because he didn't use religion as his excuse for discrimination like Obama did, and because Elizabeth is working on him about equality).

[Truetuft]

It's not that gays should do less or walk away from the DNC. We should do more. Become more engaged with the DNC itself, we should do more to change hearts and minds of or Democratic and Republican family, friends and co-workers. Gay people, like myself, have a lots of hard work to do to legally gain these rights. Like an earlier poster said, "Nobody respects a doormat". We've got to FIGHT for our RIGHTS!

[em8chel]

I know everyone thinks he's kinda loopy and the media is totally ignoring him...but Gravel is actually my favorite among the Dems and he's also for same sex marriage, not just domestic partnership. I don't think the world can handle another four years of God-told-m­e-to-do-th­is Republican...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rZdAB4V_j8