Ok, when I gave a plug to Outright Libertarians I said I wished they had more of a sense of humor.
Handicapping the presidential race from a gay perspective in Fact-correcting the Queer Press, however, sets me straight--so to speak. (Ouch!)
The humor is dry, but it's definitely there, and the conclusions are solid:
That's the analysis; here's the best line from the piece:
Whether you're a proponent of gay rights or not, this piece is an outstanding example of covering the campaign from any single-issue perspective, and ultimately illuminates one serious conclusion:
Too true.
Handicapping the presidential race from a gay perspective in Fact-correcting the Queer Press, however, sets me straight--so to speak. (Ouch!)
The humor is dry, but it's definitely there, and the conclusions are solid:
Basically, gay voters have three choices this election season.
They can throw their support to Democrats, who define "outreach" as segregation of gay people into "separate and unequal" legal status; who argue about which is "bolder" by naming so-called partisan gay "leaders" as supporters (or keeping them in the closet, in Obama's case); and who claim to be "supporters of gay rights" yet have done literally nothing after years in the Senate to support even the most rudimentary (and aging) legislation pertaining to equality under the law.
Or they can throw their support to Republicans, who flee at the mention of gay people; thank gay people for their "support" while supporting anti-gay policies; or have the dubious distinction of politically and/or financially profiting from homophobic public statements or publications.
Or they can choose to support Libertarians, who unequivocally support equal treatment in marriage, taxation, immigration, military service, and adoption.
It's not a tough choice for those of us who are aware of the differences (and insist on quality gay journalism, something that's increasingly hard to find in the political arena).
That's the analysis; here's the best line from the piece:
Ben Labolt, a national spokesperson for the Obama campaign, said the campaign was definitely seeking gay support in Georgia and referred calls to Drenner for further comments.
Press releases from the Obama campaign listing Georgia supporters don’t include other notable gay leaders.
I guess that would be called "support from the closet."
Whether you're a proponent of gay rights or not, this piece is an outstanding example of covering the campaign from any single-issue perspective, and ultimately illuminates one serious conclusion:
Your faithful blogger got to meet the former Massachusetts governor at the Conservative Leadership Conference in Reno, Nevada and concluded that Romney is just as pandering and principle-free as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the other Democrats. In fact, they could swap places and not many people would notice.
Too true.
Comments
Sometimes, however, this view of the world makes sense. Certainly since President Bush discovered gays are a threat to the nation in 2003, it has made sense to work with officer holders to at least try and make sure things get no worse. Or as I remarked to an African-America judge who chided me in the middle of my 2004 seminar remarks for what she thought was an analogy of the African-American and gay experiences, "Judge, are there constitutional amendments on the ballot in fourteen states this fall that seek to make YOU a second-class citizen?"