How historically & specifically have dems been better for gays than pukes? [View All]

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

Because sometimes it seems as though gays and lesbians don't have adequate representation.

When the question has been asked in the past, the response from some dems has been disdain, "those gays have no choice - where else are they going to go - ha, ha, ha - let them eat cake." And despite Kerry's generally excellent record w/r/t civil rights (which exists in contrast to his to-date unretracted comment about the MA dem platform supporting gay marriage being a "mistake"), gays and lesbians did not turn out in a substantially greater proportion to vote for Kerry than they did for Gore.

In campaigning for president, Clinton told gays that he was their friend and would get the military to drop its outright ban on gays. Instead, he compromised on that promise and fashioned the politically expedient "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. I never forgot that, and when 2000 rolled around, the fact that Gore was a dem didn't resonate with me. ("So what? Clinton was a dem, and look what he did.")

That said, this is not to say that voting puke is the "only alternative." Voting puke for that reason alone is biting off your nose to spite your face. But we still see too many dems floundering on civil rights due to concerns about "electability", "do-ability", even downright homophobia.

The risk dems run in not embracing civil rights is that at some point, gays and lesbians will stop caring about not just dems but the political process altogether, are going to give diddly-squat who wins because neither side actually delivers, and too many on both sides vote for things toxic to their well-being, like the DOMA.

Give us reasons why we should want dems to win.