Skip to main content

The comment quoted in the title of this diary has been repeated on liberal websites such as this one (as in this diary here) since news came out that "only" 70% of LGBT people voted for Democrats this year. That attitude demonstrates a major problem with the Democratic Party, and why it failed so badly this year. That problem is the view that Democrats are owed 100% of the vote from all minority groups despite their modest to poor effort (in some cases outright hostility) towards minorities in this country. Further it also is indicative of another problem of entitlement by Democrats: the belief that they are owed the hard work and efforts of all progressives.

Dear straight Democrats (in government), you are NOT entitled to ANY gay votes, because straight Democrats, you have actively worked against gay rights. Obama has appealed every gay rights ruling by the courts claiming it is his job to do that. In fact it isn't. In the 1990s when a federal judge ruled that the military's ban on HIV positive people from serving was unconstitutional, Bill Clinton didn't appeal. He accepted the ruling and military policy changed. Obama could have done the same thing in regards to DOMA and DADT. He didn't and continues to actively work against gay rights. Yet, you Democrats feel entitled to 100% of the gay vote, and anything less you consider an apostasy.

Well, no, that's not the rules of the game. You aren't owed anything from gay people until you actually muster the courage to vote for gay rights policies that most Americans support. Further, if you continue to treat our demands for our equality as "wishing for a pony" you deserve even less support next time around.

But let's go with what you got from us this time: 69% of our vote. If only the straight community were as supportive of Democrats as the gay community. What would have happened if straight Democrats were as successful in getting straight people to vote Democratic as gay Democrats were in getting gay people to vote Democratic?

Straight people, not gay people have failed the Democrats. If straights voted as strongly for Democrats as gay people did, you would not have lost 61 seats. In all likelihood, you would have picked up 100 seats with 69% of the straight vote. So, get this right my straight Democratic friends: you didn't get your ass kicked because of gay people, you got your ass kicked because of straight people.

This issue isn't a matter of gay people voting against their interests. This issue is a matter of Democrats governing against their interests. The Democrats in government belittled its base repeatedly during the last two years. The Democrats in government compromised with a party that had no interest in supporting Democratic initiatives, and wound up with convoluted policy that confused voters, angered its base, and failed to bring in dynamic change that would've energized the large progressive turnout and support from 2008. That's called governing against your interests.

Despite your failures to bring true progressive reform, to support strong initiatives in immigration that would've energized the Hispanic vote, or to support strong gay rights legislation that would've energized the gay vote, you still won these voting blocks. Democrats don't deserve unconditional gay support because they fail to deliver for gay people. They don't deserve unconditional minority support because they fail to deliver for minorities. They don't deserve unconditional progressive support because they fail to deliver for progressives.

And Democrats didn't deserve the 69% gay support they got. But they got it anyway. You want more support from gays than you got? Prove it. Govern like you do.

Originally posted to RfrancisR on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 11:02 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Well name one thing the Republicans (7+ / 0-)

    have done for gay rights!  Your contention that "Straight Democrats" worked against gay rights. I'm straight I have never worked against gay rights. This goes for all my straight democratic friend and relatives.

    It's not a "pledge for America" it is a "pledge for American Corporations."

    by regis on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 11:17:14 AM PDT

    •  You are right I can't name one thing Republicans (5+ / 0-)

      did. But then that makes Dems in Washington equal to Repubs in Washington. As for my comments about straight Democrats, I meant the ones in government.

    •  Actually, I can think of something (9+ / 0-)

      the two most prominent gay rights rulings from the Supreme Court were written by a Republican, Justice Anthony Kennedy. Also, those are the two most important things to come from the federal government to gay rights.

      •  Interesting example. . . (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fizziks

        Keep in mind that, if Democrats hadn't taken back control of the Senate in 1986, Robert Bork would be sitting in Kennedy's chair.  Talk about party mattering for gay rights!

        In Rand McNally, they wear hats on their feet, and hamburgers eat people!

        by cardinal on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 11:38:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bork wasn't rejected because of his position (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slatsg, TheGeneral, craigkg

          on gay rights. Yeh, ultimately it helped to have Democrats in the Senate after the '86 elections. But it is only coincidental that Bork was rejected and we wound up with a pro-gay Kennedy. Let's not pretend that the Democrats were opposing Bork on his gay rights stances.

          •  And, let's remember that the Democrats (5+ / 0-)

            also approved Scalia and Thomas. So, they coincidentally sent off one anti-gay justice and approved two others.

          •  I didn't say that Dems (0+ / 0-)

            rejected Bork because of his stance on gay rights.  I simply said that party is highly consequential for the advancement or retrenchment of gay rights in America.

            In Rand McNally, they wear hats on their feet, and hamburgers eat people!

            by cardinal on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 11:44:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  generally speaking (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cardinal, TiaRachel, Kitsap River

              I would rather have Democrats than Republicans, which is why I have never voted for a Republican in my life.

              But because you "only" get 70 percent of the gay vote is not an excuse to bash gay people. When straights vote at a rate above 70 percent for Democrats, then a straight person can criticize a gay person for being regressive with his vote. But until then shut up and show your gratitude to gay people for voting so overwhelmingly Democratic.

              •  I agree with that, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                enhydra lutris

                except for this part:

                When straights vote at a rate above 70 percent for Democrats, then a straight person can criticize a gay person for being regressive with his vote.

                That will never happen because a large proportion of straight folks hate gays.  The fairer comparison would be whether at least 70% of allies voted Dem.  But we'll never know the answer.

                But I agree with your larger point.  There's a difference between trying to solve the puzzle of why certain segments of society vote against their interests -- which is hardly unique to gay Republicans -- vs. bashing a minority group because it didn't vote "pure" enough.  If anyone here is doing the latter, then they clearly deserve your criticism.  As for gay Republicans, I went to college in Orange County, CA, the hotbed of Log Cabinism, and I knew tons of them.  They simply prioritized other things like their upper-bracket tax cuts ahead of sexuality politics.  I didn't agree with them; but I never criticized them for it.

                In Rand McNally, they wear hats on their feet, and hamburgers eat people!

                by cardinal on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 12:02:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  How about the Log Cabin REPUBLICANS?! (9+ / 0-)

      The Log Cabin REPUBLICANS got DADT overturned. It's Obama who is appealing that ruling, and Obama who got the ruling stayed during appeal.  You may not have worked against gay rights, but the head of your party is.

      Besides, saying "you should vote Democratic, we don't hate you as much as Republicans do" encourages the soft bigotry of the left, and I refuse to do that any more.

      Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

      by lostboyjim on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 11:45:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So become a Republican (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skohayes

        By the way- Bill Clinton gave us DADT and DOMA.

        And the only way to overturn what is law is to have Congress write another law in place of that one, or have the Supreme Court decide.

        Also, the DOJ is supposed to work independently from the Executive Branch. I know for some this is a shock because Alberto Gonzales did such a bang up job working independently from Bush.

        The job of the DOJ is to DEFEND the laws that already exist in this country.

        I want NCLB repealed yesterday, too. But I realize that fixing that mistake will take time also.

        •  The job of the DOJ is to DEFEND the laws that (0+ / 0-)

          already exist in this country...

          What, like the ones against murder, torture, kidnapping, extrajudicial assassination, war crimes such as wars of aggression?  Yeah, they're really doing a bang up job of defending the laws that already exist in this country.

          Wow, Independents put down the centrist Blue Dogs, and somehow liberals are to blame?

          by Ezekial 23 20 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 02:15:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  get over it (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dirkster42, orestes1963

          look, the question was, "What have republicans done for me"...I was answering the question.

          In regards to you, while the DOJ is independent, it will take orders from the executive.  You can look at Gonzales, I'm looking at Clinton chosing not to appeal then it was ruled that soldiers couldn't be kicked out because of HIV.  The Executive, can, and should, have a voice in what the DOJ does.

          And it isn't the job of the DOJ to "DEFEND" unconstitutional laws (which is what DADT was ruled to be).

          Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

          by lostboyjim on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 02:33:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Will you people nevr stop with (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RfrancisR

          the idiot talking points.  The DOJ is not independent of the executive.  It is part of the executive branch.  Politics should not dictate who gets prosecuted, but the executive decides where resources will be employed.  For example, why has the DOJ not investigated Bush crimes?  Because the chief executive decided not to look backwards.  So either inform yourself on the functioning of the executive branch (if you write from an uninformed position) and stop propogating this lie in defense of the president.  

      •  Dang, I skipped over this before posting the same (0+ / 0-)

        reply below :P

        Wow, Independents put down the centrist Blue Dogs, and somehow liberals are to blame?

        by Ezekial 23 20 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 02:14:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Ted Olson isn't exactly Mr. Democrat (7+ / 0-)

      yet it is in part his work that has helped in the court cases against Prop 8 in California.  The LCR has been instrumental in litigating against DADT.

      It's about time I changed my signature.

      by Khun David on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 11:52:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Utterly fallacious. Behavior of Republicans is (5+ / 0-)

      completely irrelevant to questions of behavior of Democrats. Injecting it is completely out of place.  Second, your anecdotal evidence, touching as it is, has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of statements about "Straight Democrats" unless those statements specifically say *"ALL"* Straight Democrats.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt -

      by enhydra lutris on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 12:17:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ok. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RfrancisR

      The challenge to DADT going through the courts right now is from the 'Log Cabin Republicans'.

      The administration keeps trying to block DADT from being repealed any time soon, while Republicans are trying to kill it in the courts.

      Wow, Independents put down the centrist Blue Dogs, and somehow liberals are to blame?

      by Ezekial 23 20 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 02:13:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  While GAY republicans (0+ / 0-)

        are trying to kill it in the courts, Republicans as a whole don't care about the Log Cabin Republicans or GOProud. As a matter of fact, they work actively to remove gay rights from current law (witness Rick Scott in Florida wanting to bring back the anti-gay adoption bill that Crist vetoed).

        How come the dove gets to be the peace symbol? How about the pillow? It has more feathers than the dove and doesn't have that dangerous beak. Jack Handey

        by skohayes on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 03:10:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And straight Dems (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RfrancisR

          are trying to block it being killed.

          So there are some stupid straight people, and some stupid gay people.  But gays still vote more overwhelmingly Dem than straight folks do, so the whole singling them out as group and complaining that they don't vote dem enough is pretty damn stupid.

          Wow, Independents put down the centrist Blue Dogs, and somehow liberals are to blame?

          by Ezekial 23 20 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 03:54:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not singling gays out (0+ / 0-)

            I don't blame them for this debacle any more than I blame the rest of the Dems that didn't turn out.
            I actually wrote the first part wrong in my post, I should have said gay republicans are bringing these issues infront of the courts (not trying to kill it, as I wrote above), while the party they support is actively trying to remove all the advances the GLBT community has had in the last decade.
            It just seems crazy to vote for a Republican if you're gay. Not stupid, just somewhat insane if you're an informed voter.

            How come the dove gets to be the peace symbol? How about the pillow? It has more feathers than the dove and doesn't have that dangerous beak. Jack Handey

            by skohayes on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 02:30:09 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I happen to agree with this (12+ / 0-)

    Obama's point about "enforcing the law" with regard to Gay rights makes about as much sense as enforcing the fugitive slave law.  The courts rightly struck down bad legislation.  Obama does not need to bring it back to prove his credibility.  The courts were right and the legal decision was exceedingly sound.  This is simply cowardice--cringing before the right wing noise machine before it even begins to hammer its dissonant bullshit.    This is one straight person who is tired of taking Gay rights for granted.  The SOBs the administration empowered on the other side are not in a compromising mood either.  Not even the wave of suicides seems to have penetrated the cowardice at the heart of this party lately.  This is the first issue we can win with presidential fortitude since the dismal Second of November. . .

  •  big picture (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fizziks, roycej, HylasBrook

    Everything you say is correct--President Obama has not done as much as we expected--or, as much as he could have done by Executive order.  However, the Republicans will undo the small gains already achieved.  Notice what happened to the honest judges in Iowa--voted out of office.  Democracy often demands voting for the less bad--or voting against the enemy.  By that rule, Dems should have gotten every gay vote.

    Apres Bush, le deluge.

    by melvynny on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 11:24:55 AM PDT

  •  There was a lot of (10+ / 0-)

    confusion in the discussion here over the fact that a higher percentage of gays voted for Republicans.  Most commenters seemed to assume that a certain proportion of gays switched from Dem voting in 2008 to Rep this year.  But that's merely one of two possible explanations (and, IMO, the far less likely one) for the observed statistic.  It could also be that, among gays, those who happen to be Republicans turned out at a higher proportion than those who are Democrats.  That would match the overall pattern in the electorate, and wouldn't involve trying to figure out why gay Democrats would switch parties.

    But you're sort of skirting the main issue here: it's a huge leap to go from saying that Dems in DC aren't doing enough for GLBT rights (and, as a 20-year activist on the issue, I would agree 1000%), to arguing that there's no difference between the party that gave us the most gay-progressive presidential administration in history (the dubious court-case appeals notwithstanding, it's hard to disagree with that), and one whose platform stops just short of wanting you dead.

    In Rand McNally, they wear hats on their feet, and hamburgers eat people!

    by cardinal on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 11:27:35 AM PDT

    •  Stop using Reality..... (0+ / 0-)

      The struggle for equal rights is a long and hard slog. Women and people of color have been fighting 100 years for equality and keep on fighting everyday.  The priveleged always want to be exclusive, it protects them from reality and makes them feel powerful and makes them rich.
      "Change is hard if it were easy it would have happened already."  B.Obama
      He went to Harvard not Hogwarts.

      "Republicans are the party that says that government doesn't work, then they get elected and prove it."-- PJ O'Rourke

      by nocynicism on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 04:14:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  just wondering (0+ / 0-)

    How is this information obtained in the first place?  Exit polls? Is there a gay/straight box to be checked off?  I just don't remember ever being asked the question before.

    •  There is ONE poll (6+ / 0-)

      of 110 gay voters done by CNN.  All these 69% stats are coming from that CNN poll.  The methodology is mostly unknown (I can't find it at least).

      In general if you poll gay voters in SF or NYC (Or any urban city) you will havea much higher percentage voting liberal than if you poll rural or surburban gay voters.  Exacly like straight voters.  Not knowing who was polled makes this data grossly suspect, as does the sample size.  Add to that the fact that it's still 69% voting Democrat, and I don't get the fuss.

      Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

      by lostboyjim on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 11:49:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  CNN poll? Not surprising (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TiaRachel, Cofcos, sfbob, skohayes, IPLawyer

        There is ONE poll of 110 gay voters done by CNN.  All these 69% stats are coming from that CNN poll.  The methodology is mostly unknown (I can't find it at least).

        CNN was responsible for the black-people-killed-proposition-8 exit poll. Black people are 7% of the population in California and some of them are gay, and they did not vote in large enough numbers to affect the outcome of Prop 8 and those who did vote for it did so for religious reasons not because of their melanin, but that didn't deter the larger than life myth that arose from CNN's non-representative poll.

    •  From an essentially non-credible "poll" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TiaRachel, Cofcos

      of self-identified gays. The methodology is being kept secret, so little more can be said. Given the complete lack of evidence of anything meeting any of the criteria of a statistically valid random sample, this allegation is closer to pure noise that to meaningful data.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt -

      by enhydra lutris on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 12:24:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  be this same token, a higher %age of women voted (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cofcos, RfrancisR, IPLawyer

    GOP because of Stupek, a higher %age environmentalists because of offshore leases, a higher %age of anti-war activists because of Afghanistan, a higher %age of free-speech/1st amendment activists because of wiretapping/Gitmo. Truth be told, a high %age of all democrats had axes to grind with this Administration on a long list of grievances. But reality suggests most voters had issues with Geitner and Bernanke. And if this president reacts to these results by shifting even further to the right on social issues important to core constituents of the party, he will get spanked in two years as well.

    http://wglb-tv.blogspot.com/

    by tnichlsn on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 11:52:38 AM PDT

    •  A higher percentage (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skohayes

      namely 23 million voters, didn't show up.

      They were the ones who gave governorships, state legislatures, redistricting power and the House of Representatives to the GOP.

      By giving GOP governors the power to redraw progressive-leaning districts out of existence, they really taught the administration a lesson for decades to come.

  •  There are a lot of disappointed progressives (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cardinal, skohayes, Looking for Mauve

    for many reasons in 2010.

    I certainly don't believe LGBT voters contributed that much to the Democratic debacle.
    Some progressives may have stayed home.  In the long run I suspect the reason for this Republican wave way was expectations that things would change in 2 years when it took 8 years to create them.

    Will DADT be repealed this congress? I doubt it.  An executive order can't negate a law that Congress has passed. Obama's administration made it a policy to defend all laws passed by Congress which, apparently, is SOP for for all administrations.  I wish though the defense had been more token than real.

    As an African American, I understand your frustration being asked to "wait for the right time" to press for your rights when you know that for some people, the time will never be right.

    Republicans in Bush'sadministratin got around socially beneficial government programs by not funding them.  I think that the Obama administration should do essentially the same thing by not enforcimg DADT.

    I don't know what is possible to do regarding LGBT rights in the next 2 years because the Republican majority in the House won't let it pass.

    All I can say is that weneed to work for a Democratic majority in 2012, to get laws that should have been enacted in the 111th Congressin the 113th.

    HylasBrook @62 - fiesty, fiery, and fierce

    by HylasBrook on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 11:55:58 AM PDT

  •  To quote the movie "Glory": (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes, wahine

    "Well, you won't get anything if we lose".

    That's a harsh reality.  And deciding to withhold a vote must take those factors into consideration.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

    by zenbassoon on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 11:58:48 AM PDT

    •  What's your point? (6+ / 0-)

      Are we seeing the same bashing of Jewish voters because 31% of them voted Republican, or the Latinos because 34% voted Republican?

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 12:06:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Get 70% of straight people to vote Democratic (7+ / 0-)

      then you might have a point in criticizing gay voters. But until then show your unconditional gratitude for our overwhelming support for your party.

      •  Would it have made sense (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nocynicism

        if 70% of Jews in Germany voted for the Nazis? Would it have been "Jew bashing" to suggest that Jews voting for Nazis were "voting against their own interest"?

        The fact is the Republican platform just about declares that party as the Party of Straight People.

        Anyone who votes Republican deserves to be bashed. It's just that gay people who vote Republican deserve a special citation. Unconditional support? I don't think so.

        •  Your analogy makes no sense (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slatsg, TiaRachel, Cofcos, orestes1963

          the Republican Party is not the Nazi Party, and 70% of gays supported voted against the Republican Party. Straight Dems are the ones who demand unconditional support. And no, gays who don't show blind fealty to the Democratic party deserve no more scrutiny than straights who fail to show blind fealty to the Democrats.

          Again, until the day that you get 70% of straight people to vote Democratic you have no room to criticize gays. If straights were as likely to vote Democratic as gays then you all wouldn't have gotten your ass kicked this past Tuesday. We are a large reason that ass-kicking wasn't worse. That is praise worthy not bash-worthy.

          •  What you're saying (0+ / 0-)

            is absurd. Again you want to lump ALL gays together for unconditional support and gratitutde from Democrats regardless of whether they individually voted Democratic or Republican. Let me ask you, would you make this same claim to Republicans? Would you ask Republicans for unconditional gratitutde and support for all gays regardless of whether they voted Republican or Democratic?

            the Republican Party is not the Nazi Party

            Well, that makes one of us who thinks that.

  •  Gay people "owing" Democrats (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fizziks

    has nothing to do with it. The comment "Talk about voting against your own interest" is spot on. Gay people voting Republican is utterly ridiculous. Legitimate complaints about slow moving Democrats is one thing but voting for Republicans whose platform is explicitly anti-gay to the point of demonization and ostracization reeks of the Stockholm Syndrome. Voting against the exact constituency that is responsible for furthering the plight of gays is the ultimate smack in the face and I'll never see eye to eye with anyone who supports it. Good luck with the future with Republicans in charge. Me thinks there are some clueless gays who are taking their much improved status in our society for granted.

    •  SHOW YOUR GRATITUDE (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Looking for Mauve

      that's all really. 70% of gays voted for your party. That's time for praise and gratitude from Democrats not criticism.

      •  You're making no sense (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skohayes, nocynicism

        You want unconditional gratitutde for all gays EVEN THOUGH over 30% of gays voted Republican. Obviously I'm not criticising the gays who voted Democratic. All of my disapproval (and that of the commentor who said "Talk about voting against your own interest") is for gays who voted Republican. They, of course, don't deserve one lick of my gratitude and unconditional support. In fact, it is THEY who should show some gratitutde and unconditional support for the constituency who has consistently backed them over the years.

        I also have to take exception to your earlier comment of "show your unconditional gratitude for our overwhelming support for your party".

        "Our" support for "your" party?

        Well, thanks for the favor.
        In case you hadn't noticed, this is YOUR party too. Maybe if you had that frame of mind you wouldn't act like your voting Democrat was some kind of favor for "us".

        If you're really a Democrat, you shouldn't ever ask any other Democrat to thank you for your support of the party.

        •  If we didn't get constant recriminations from (4+ / 0-)

          people who supposedly are our allies then maybe we might feel like we really are a part of your party. Instead you all spit on us every chance you get.

          The overwhelming majority of us vote for the Democrats, but all we get from the Democrats is talk about how we have something wrong with us because instead of 100% support you only got 70% support.

          Again, if straights were as loyal to Democrats as we are, you wouldn't have lost so badly this past week. Stop blaming us. It's straight people's fault you lost not ours.

        •  asdf (5+ / 0-)

          If you're really a Democrat, you shouldn't ever ask any other Democrat to thank you for your support of the party

          Since these straight right wing Democrats demand that GLBT Democrats, and, beyond that, all GLBT folks show gratitude to the party, for pretty much absotively de nada, that would indeed appear to the the mainstream belief here, accepted and defended by a huge shrill vociferous crowd, including yourself.

          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt -

          by enhydra lutris on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 12:35:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And where, pray tell, is your disapproval (5+ / 0-)

          of the Jewish voters(31% Republican) or the Latino voters(34%) Republican or the women voters (49% Republican)?

          A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

          by slatsg on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 12:45:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Pray tell (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nocynicism

            they weren't the subject of this diary.

            These comments are ridiculous.

            The diarist has said any complaint about gay people who vote Republican is "gay bashing". That is totally absurd. If you must know, I feel the same way about any Jew, any Hispanic, any Muslim, any Christian, any man, any woman, any African American, any caucasian, any Asian...any human that votes Republican as I do about gays. The idea of unconditional support to all gay peeple for the 70% support for "your" party is distasteful. The diarist has overreacted to what I feel is a spot on comment..."Talk about voting against your own interest". If that's gay bashing, wait until the gay Republicans get aload of Tom Tancredo.

            •  They weren't the subject of this diary (7+ / 0-)

              because no one is singling them out as particularly problematic for the Democratic Party.

              However, people are telling gay people to STFU in the name of Democratic unity all the time.

              •  You can't be serious (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                nocynicism

                You've never heard anyone give specific backlash to Jewish Republicans or Hispanic Republicans? You and I must live on different planets.

                people are telling gay people to STFU in the name of Democratic unity all the time.

                Really? Could you be specific? And is this any different from any other part of our constituency that is asked by certain people to temper their criticism in the name of unity?

                Certainly that is a whole different agenda than the one that claims criticism of gays voting Republican is "gay bashing". It seems as if you are now expanding the original idea because the original idea it can't stand on its own.

            •  Show me comments or diaries (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kerplunk, dirkster42, Cofcos, lostboyjim

              since last Tuesday taking Jewish or Latino voters to task.

              This diary and the diary I wrote are inrfesponse to the drivel that has been actually posted regarding the LGBT community. the following is an example:

              I'll support anti-hate agenda and anti bullying agenda, but that's it. They're on their own with gay marriage and DADT.

              Please show me a similar comment regarding Jews or Latinos.

              A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

              by slatsg on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 01:28:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  slatsg (0+ / 0-)

                its unfair of you or others to now dump a load of other issues to this one as if to disagree with my position as stated on the diary at hand.

                I stand by my comment that saying "Talk about voting against your own self interest" is not "gay bashing". That does not mean I support any other comment that may well be gay bashing and/or particularly insensitive to gays.

                Just to be clear, do you feel the comment "talk about voting against your own self interest" qualifies as "gay bashing"?

                •  Yes When It Comes From You And Your Shrill (0+ / 0-)

                  homophobia.

                  250 is the new 180

                  by kerplunk on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 01:45:05 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I am sorry you are offended (5+ / 0-)

                  These two diaries were written response to what we percieve as gay bashing. The LGBT community has been singled our numerous times in comments and diaries over the past four days for voting against their "self interest" even though other groups who have higher percentages voting against their "self-interest" were ignored.

                  To me that's a double standard. Unless folks are going to take Jews, Latinos, and women to task for their votes, then I would suggest that it is indeed gay bashing. In your comments, you're suggesting that it is not. We disagree.

                  A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

                  by slatsg on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 01:50:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  slatsg (0+ / 0-)

                    Don't you think that the "singling out of the LGBT community" might be because of the statistic that at this particular time of the massive rightward bigoted shift of the TeaBaggers takeover of the Republican party, somehow 4% more gay people voted Republican than in 2008, 7% more thasn in 2006, and 8% more than in 2004? Is it only "gay bashing" to be offended by this massive shift rightward of gays who have publically been vilified by the new party of their choice to the point that real gay bashing is a part of the party platform? Again, I'm only speaking to the comment discussed in THIS diary and not all the other issues you've loaded on which I  have made no comment on. If there have been a series of "gay bashing" comments certainly they should be called out but not every disagreement with gays is gat bashing by definition.

                    Calling the comment "talk about voting against your own self interest" gay bashing is harsh beyond fairness. And yes, many Jews and Hispanics in the past have been called out for the same thing. But Republicans save their most blatant hate speech for gays.

                    The diarist has already dabbled in a little bashing with the bigoted "Lefty straight people are so hypocritical on gay rights" comment. Do you see how easy it is to throw stones if you want to?

                    •  gays didn't shift party (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      dirkster42

                      they stayed home this election cycle.  If you are unaware of why that might have happened, then go do some research and come back when you have a clue about gay issues with Democrats.

                      Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

                      by lostboyjim on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 02:55:09 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Read this again (0+ / 0-)

                        4% more gay people voted Republican than in 2008, 7% more thasn in 2006, and 8% more than in 2004

                        •  You read it (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          lostboyjim

                          and open up a statistics textbook.  Lesson One.  Example:  In 2008, 1 million gays voted.  800,000 voted Democratic; 200,000 (20%) republican.  In 2010, 800,000 gays voted; 200,000 of those voted republican (25%).  No increase in numbers voting republican here, but the percentage increases.  See, that's how mathematics works.  You should give it a try; it has a thousand uses.

                          •  orestes, if you're still out there (0+ / 0-)

                            your comment is ridiculous. What statistics book did you use to determine hat percentages don't matter? In what world does mathematics work the way you described it?

                            This is an embarrassing comment from you:

                            No increase in numbers voting republican here, but the percentage increases.

                            The fact that you're trying to statistically and mathematically hang your hat on that premise is comical.

                            No increase but the percentage increased?

                            That's the whole point!

                            So according to you, if in 2008 200,000 out of 1 million gays vote Republican and then in 2010 200,000 out of 200,000 gays vote Republican there is no increase in gays voting Republican and Democrats have nothing to talk about regarding the gay vote because "there was no increase"?

                            You've just turned the concept of polling on its head.

                            Put another way, in your scenario, ALL (100%) of the 200,000 less gay votes in the 2010 election would have to vote Democratic to keep the percentage the same as 2008. What are the odds of that statistically given the 1 in 4 frequency of Republican voting gays for the first 800,000 voters?

                            Do you really want to stand by your "statistical" analysis?

                            Do you still want to stand

                          •  I am speechless (0+ / 0-)

                            The statement that you point to is a factual one based upon my example.  In both scenarios the same number of GLBT people voted republican.  I can't fathom what is comical about that.  Accordingly, the rest of your comment is inane.

                          •  You should be speechless (0+ / 0-)

                            You have tossed the study of statistics on its head.

                            In both scenarios the same number of GLBT people voted republican

                            Yes, but the sample size changed as did the ratio (dramatically) and for you to say there is no statistical difference is adsurd. The comical aspect is that you told me to open a statistics book while you have sent the study of statistics back 500 years.

                            According to you 200,000 people out of 1 million voting Republican is the same as 200,000 people out of 800,000. Simply put, it is not and no statistical scholar would say it is. Can't you see that just looking at the amount of gays who voted Republican without considering the sample size is statistically irresponsible. Since no two voting samples are ever exactly the same, in number or make up, the ratio or percentage of voters voting any particular way is all that matters. In this case the percentage of voters voting Republican increased dramatically. Again, to keep the percentage the same in 2010 as it was in 2008 ALL (100%) of the 200,000 less 2010 votes would have to be Democratic. Again, given that the ratio of gay voters voting Republican was 1 in 4 for the first 800,000 voters, what are the chances the missing 200,000 voters would suddenly drop to 0 out of 200,000 from 1 in 4? 800,000 is enough of a sample size to conclude that the ratio for next 200,000 votes would probably be very similar to the first 800,000 thus if 200,000 more gays had voted in 2010 most likely Republicans would have ended up with 250,000 total gay votes. And obviously 250,000 is more than 200,000.

                            Put another way, if one baseball player had 50 hits out of 600 at bats in a season and another player had 50 hits in 200 at bats, who had the better season? According to your theory, they were equal because they both ended up with 50 hits but no one else on earth would agree becasue the batting average of the first player was .083 while the batting average of the second player was .250. Satistically, the second player was much beter. Tyat's just how statistics work.

                            This whole conversation is ridiculous because it started with the diarist's flawed notion that ALL (100%) of gay voters should be shown gratitutde from Democrats EVEN the one's who voted Republican. This is a Democratic site devoted to getting Democrats voted into office and the diarist wanted the popuation of this website to hail the Republican voting gays. It has now reached the absurd point of people trying to argue that 25% of gays voting Republican is the same as 20% voting Republican in a tortured attempt to justify the diarist's ridiculous notion. Simply put, I am a Democrat on a Democratic site. Asking me or any other Democrat on this site to show unconditional support and gratitutde to gays who voted Republican is a travesty. I would much prefer the diarist spend his time lamenting the lost souls of the gays who voted Republican and vowing to get the word out about their huge mistake and instead have been told by him I have to show gratitude for their Republican vote and if I agree that gay people voting Republican are voting against their own self interest, I'm gay bashing. I competely reject both notions.

                          •  You argue against a point i did not make (0+ / 0-)

                            Mypoint, which was clearly stated, was that in my example the number of gays and lesbians who voted for republicans did not increase.  That looking solely at the percentages (based on a very small sample) does not show anything worthwhile.  

                            Furhtermore, your baseball analogy is inapposite.  It would be a true statement that players A and B had the same number of hits in the season.  That would be the approprite analogy here.  

                            It seems that you have an agenda to demonize gay and lesbian voters (lost souls?).  Fine, have at your agenda.  But it is completely irrelevant to my point.  If my example were accurate, the conclusion to draw would be that republican GLBT voters turned out whereas not as many Dem GLBT voters did.  You cannot reasonably draw the conclusion that the number of GLBT fols who voted republican increased.  This seems to be the conclusion you want to draw, whcih can only be based upon your agenda, not the facts in my hypothetical.

                          •  Agenda? (0+ / 0-)

                            Come on, that's desperate.

                            Mypoint, which was clearly stated, was that in my example the number of gays and lesbians who voted for republicans did not increase.

                            You told me to open up a statistics book. Is there a statistics book on earth that disregards the sample size and only considers one side of the equation? Your analysis flies is the face of statistical analysis and your attempt to label me as "agenda" driven is laughable. AGAIN, to keep things statistically equal ALL (100%) of the missing 200,000 votes from 2010 would have to be cast for Democrats in order for the ratio to stay the same as 2008. Would you expect that to happen? The longer you try to insist there is no statistical difference between these two years the more ridiculous you look.

                            It would be a true statement that players A and B had the same number of hits in the season.  That would be the approprite analogy here.  

                            The fact that the two players had the same amount of hits would be correct. The analogy that these two hitters were statistically equal would be massively incorrect. That's the problem with your analysis. It only considers one side of the equation to draw flawed conclusions. Open up your statistics book again.

                            It seems that you have an agenda to demonize gay and lesbian voters (lost souls?)  

                            It "seems" that way?

                            This is a Democratic site devoted to getting Democrats voted into office and I'm a Democrat devoted to the same. Did you come here epecting neutral conversation? Do you find it surprising that I find Republican voters "lost souls"? This is not a gay site. It is not a Republican site. It's a Democratic site. Don't ask me to be accepting of Republican voters on this site. That's ridiculous. If there is anyone with an agenda it was the diarist who is obviously hostile to "straight lefties" who he called all "hypocrites". Or you trying to argue that 20% is equal to 25% and calling anyone who doesn't go along with that flawed notion is "agenda driven". If I'm "demonizing" anyone its voters who voted Republican, which is the subject at hand.

                          •  Thanks for the confirmation (0+ / 0-)

                            I will give you points for relentlessness.  You keep going on, but it is all nonresponsive.

    •  Straight people voted Republican by about 20% (0+ / 0-)

      more than gays did.  And they were voting against their own interests every bit as much.  To single out gay people for voting less Republican than heterosexuals do is ludicrous.

      Wow, Independents put down the centrist Blue Dogs, and somehow liberals are to blame?

      by Ezekial 23 20 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 02:08:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I do object to the diary title. It is not gay (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fizziks

    bashing on the left. It is presumed to be righties doing it, because it is intrinsically and inherently a right-wing position. To be a even a liberal, let alone anybody further to the left, requires that one believe in, support and work for equality. Not equality for some, or equality for white straight males (a totally reactionary position), but equality for all. Anything else is not merely conservative and bigoted; it is, in this day and age, pretty damn close to reactionary. The "my Priest told me ..." defense doesn't help them either because doninionism is also reactionary.  No matter if some of these bigots might think that they are lefties, being to the left of Mussolini or Louis the 14th doesn't make you a lefty, and bigots are, in this day and age, definitionally right-wingers.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt -

    by enhydra lutris on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 12:32:13 PM PDT

  •  Ugh. Idenity politics. Again (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg, RfrancisR, IPLawyer, orestes1963

    Isn't it possible that there is as wide a range of political opinion in the gay community as there is among straights?

    Are all gay individuals required to vote based on their sexual politics first?

    Good grief.  Guess they don't mean much unless we have their vote.

    I wonder how long it will be before someone on here comes up with a version of "Uncle Tom" or "House Ni****r" for gays.

    "Let us give this capital back to the people to whom it belongs."-William Jefferson Clinton

    by The High Command on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 01:15:32 PM PDT

  •  The Homophobia Is Just Below The Surface And (6+ / 0-)

    as soon as those gays "get out of hand" (in this case meaning they don't vote Democrat), then the homophobia explodes to the surface.

    The classic Fair Weather Friend syndrome.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site