Larry Kramer has an op-ed in the LA Times today called "Why do straights hate gays?" It's an interesting piece, but really not anything new. He asks the question in the title and then describes the ways in which we are oppressed - kind of a primer for heterosexuals who don't know much about the state of gay rights at this point.
Anyway, it's a good read, but I don't think that Kramer's prescription of not voting will really solve anything. He says:
Gays should not vote for any of them. There is not a candidate or major public figure who would not sell gays down the river. We have seen this time after time, even from supposedly progressive politicians such as President Clinton with his "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military and his support of the hideous Defense of Marriage Act. Of course, it's possible that being shunned by gays will make politicians more popular, but at least we will have our self-respect. To vote for them is to collude with them in their utter disdain for us.He has a point that gays being discriminated against doesn't really drive straight people to the polls to stop it. We always hear about how anti-gay folk go to the polls to vote for anti-marriage amendments and that's the reason they're cynically put on the ballot. That's because anti-gay straight folk consider it important to vote against our rights and pro-gay straight folk don't care quite as much about the whole thing. (Sorry - lots of my friends are pro-gay straight folk, but y'all really aren't getting the numbers and pressure out there in the same ways that the Focus on the Family sort do.) And GLBT votes are negligible because there are simply too few of us to actually fight that tide alone.
Subscribe to The Bilerico Project
Leave a comment
We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.
The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.
You are completely correct. Not voting is NOT the answer. If you're really that dissatisfied with your choices of candidates (and you probably are--and you probably should be), then RUN FOR OFFICE.
Right on, Alex.
I know Marla will disagree with me, but usually Larry Kramer rocks. He tells truth to power. This time though, he's a little off base.
He said a lot of the same things in his speech for ACT UP's 20th anniversary. I overlooked that section of his speech in favor of the parts I agreed with, but I'm saddened to see that it is the part of the speech he's chosen to highlight.
I agree, bil, Larry Kramer is awesome. It's tgreat that those ideas that were in the op-ed weren't just confined to the Blend or queer peoples private conversations, as they always are. You can't pay for publicity like that.
I just respectfully disagree here.
Oh, no - it's great publicity. It's just his message that I think is off. I'm with Jen on this one (and you!). The only way to change society is to be part of society.
I agree with his thinking on radicalism and the need for a "gay army." But that army should vote - and vote for progressive candidates who support our civil rights. Otherwise, we're waiting on others to decide our fate for us.
Larry is often inspirational -- and frequently right -- even if he does too often stretch the truth way too much and is a royal pain in the rear unless you are willing to treat him like a god.
The trick with Larry is to pay less attention to his specifics and go to the heart of his message instead. That's true in this case.
Of course not voting is a bad strategy. What Larry is really calling for, if you'll read both pieces carefully, is to quit selling ourselves (and our votes and other candidate support, by extension) so cheaply that we get treated cheaply in return.
We are not too small a voting bloc to make a difference. Many an election is close enough that the winning margin is within our voting numbers. In other words, we are not big enough to be a winning majority all by ourselves but we are big enough to be spoilers in an election. That's enough power that, if we would use it more wisely, we could earn more respect from politicians than we're given today.
Refusing to vote for people who will not stand with us on marriage, for instance, could put us into spoiler position. We'd have to have a lot of courage to be willing to exercise that -- to suffer someone worse winning to have the wake-up call work -- but, eventually, even the densest will go, 'Oh, yeah, them -- I guess I can't take them for granted after all.'
And there are lots of races out there with people running who will stand with us on the tough stuff -- races that, if we'd put our money exclusively there instead of selling out to the likes of all the Dems and Repubs running for Prez right now except Kucinich, we'd be growing a base of people who will not screw us when they ascend to high office heights.
And, if we hustle even more and get great people worthy of our support to run, because so many districts are gerrymandered to a T, we'll end up with whole party caucuses worth our support ere long.
So take Larry not at his word but at his heart -- that's where his strength and his sense lies.