There is this perception amongst those who wish to favor the Democratic Party leadership that the gay rights debate is solely about wealthy white gay men who are impatient or want to assimilate. This stereotypes ignores the reality.
This is about a checklist of things that the Democrats said they were going to do once in office, and many of which, have not been done. Many of them are fairly easy to do, but are, nevertheless, not being done. Many do not need legislation to do them.
This issue is not simply, therefore, about marriage equality or Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Although, to me, this is all the same issue because each addresses the deep animus toward gay people.
If you want to understand the depth of issues left unanswered in the current Democratic era so far, you should readthis checklist. Additionally, read this article that covers the issue. Many of these issues are not discussed in any detail outside of gay sites. Thus, you may not have been exposed to the topics.
On the list is researching issues like LGBT Homeless Youth and suicide issues, non-discrimination in federal spending policies, inclusion of gay couples in the Census to accurately determine the numbers, anti-bullying and harassment policies, policy goals related to LGBT health issues at the HHS and a myriad of other concerns. Attempting to limit the breath of the complaint leveled by gay rights groups is a way of saying STFU.
Thus, the question one has when looking at this list is not simply why are the big items left without a time line (we finally got one, of sorts, on Don't Ask, Don't Tell) but also why is the low hanging fruit being ignored? What justification can possibly be given for these issues? Why are we being ignored? The question that every oppressed minority asked in the face of the majority's indifference to the minority group's suffering. There in lies the anger.
Beyond that, there is the image of white gay affluence that says the suffering is a want rather than a need for gays. However, this ignores that the issues facing the LBGT communities are often issues found in people of color communities and low income communities. The checklist above includes many of these hidden communities.
Here's the result of recent researchthat may be shocking to you:
"* A range of characteristics that predict poverty having been accounted for, same-sex couples are significantly more likely to be poor than heterosexual couples.
* In general, lesbian couples have much higher poverty rates than either different-sex couples or gay male couples. Lesbian couples who are 65 or older are twice as likely to be poor as heterosexual married couples.
* Among people 18 to 44, gay/bisexual men and heterosexual men are equally likely to be poor (15 percent versus 13 percent), and lesbian/bisexual women are more likely to be poor than heterosexual women (24 percent versus 19 percent).
* African Americans in same-sex couples and same-sex couples living in rural areas have particularly high poverty rates.
* Children of gay and lesbian partners are twice as likely to be poor as children of heterosexual couples.
* Many more LGB people live in families with very low incomes, defined as 200 percent of the federal poverty level.
* Both gay and lesbian individuals and couples are more likely than married people to receive government cash supports."
A picture that is far removed from what some in the majority would like to believe. In addition, to understand the complexity of the issue, you should read this:
"A new study finds same-sex couples in the Bronx are more likely to have children than those in any other New York City borough, and, "perhaps more than any county in the country."
Again, a very different picture than the greater culture would like to believe. Nor, can we pretend that marriage inequality does not cause grave harm, especially denial of rights to people of color and low income LGBT communities.
The best case scenario is that it cost 28,500 dollars to be LGBT in America more than it cost to be straight.
If you want to understand the urgent need for equality, you should not assume you will see it by looking at HRC or other groups. They are not representative of the diversity of the LGBT communities. Nor should you use their lack of diversity either economically or racially as an excuse to miss the greater harm being done to the hidden community.
You should not look amongst those who want to intellectualize the debate or make it about religion. You will find the impact of discrimination hidden as they always have been- hidden amongst those who can ill afford to be discriminated against like the LGBT poor or those of color.
Despite their lack of diversity in LBGT groups, many of the underlying issues are issues that do affect all LBGT people. This is why the emotions and policies over LGBT issues matters, and why I believe pressuring the Democrats is critical in the form of tying giving money to them with policy outcomes. We do not have the money to spare when this society is already penalizing us for being LGBT.
Update [2009-11-15 10:15:14 by bruh1]: There seems to be a problem with the link above so I will include a different link that goes directly to the study: http://www.law.ucla.edu/...
I would also advocate checking out the Williams Institute in general as they provide a lot of great research.
[2nd Update] In case you are having problems with the links above, here they are below for you to cut and paste into your browser to eliminate any spacing issue:
http://www.thetaskforce.org/... beginning_scoresheet.html
http://www.signorile.com/... aders-and-low-hanging-fruit.html
http://www.povertylaw.org/...
http://rodonline.typepad.com/...
http://www.nytimes.com/...
[3RD UPDATE]
Below, AndyS In Colorado makes the point that this is about better Democrats for gay rights (and I would add other issues) as follows:
I plan to support only those individuals running (1+ / 0-)
for Congress or any elected Federal office who support full legal equality for LGBT people.
That's it. For me, it's not a boycott, it's a paradigm shift. A boycott such as John Aravosis implies, or a "pause" is predicated on the idea that these incrementalist approaches might end anytime soon as well as using a punishment ideology.
To me, this frame is an argument for better Democrats rather than indiscriminately given to the party as it now stands. If we keep giving without regards to outcomes being promoted by individuals, we will not change the status quo. I believe this targeting is a better reflection of the idea I wish to convey here. What I am against is giving to entire organizations. I am in favor of individual donations to individuals who prove they are really our allies through their actions.