Discussion
In recent weeks, several posts have been made about openly gay politicians being elected to public office. Including in states that are believed to be anti-gay.
Some political scientists are saying that the spike in out politicians being elected to office is a better barometer of social acceptance and progress being made for gay rights than ( Read more... )
Some political scientists are saying that the spike in out politicians being elected to office is a better barometer of social acceptance and progress being made for gay rights than ( Read more... )
On the other hand, as far as a yardstick goes, there is a tendency to compare apples and oranges here. Nothing is a better measure of civil rights than, well, civil rights, and openly gay elected officials are not civil rights. Same-sex marriage is a civil right (though not the only important one).
The increasing number of openly gay elected officials is a better measure of social acceptance. Social acceptance is at least as important as civil rights, and will not only make pursuit of civil rights easier, but make maintaining and enjoying those rights easier. Look at the rights of African Americans after Reconstruction fell apart for a good example of how hard it can be to keep your rights without widespread social acceptance.
Still, while social acceptance is so important, it's not enough, I would suggest we need to work on both acceptance and rights.
Reply
Even some openly gay politicians who are in elected offices have mediocre records, whether they're closeted or not (obviously we know there are overcompensating self-loathing gays who cast anti-gay votes). But even people like Barney Frank: in all the time he's been in Congress, what achievements for gay rights does he have? That isn't to say he hasn't tried, but it certainly hasn't been effective. That may not be his fault, but it does say something about his effectiveness as the most visible elected gay.
Reply
As for Frank, one voice in the Senate House of Representatives doesn't mean that much. It means more than your voice or my voice when it comes to legislation, but it's still easy for the mob of homophobic members to drown out. Even now that he's got a stronger voice in the house, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee isn't in a prominent civil rights role. I suppose the ECOA and FHA could use having "actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity" being added to the list of discriminations that aren't allowed in lending or in real estate transactions. That's in his purview.
It's also important to remember that Frank spent the 14 years of his elected life as a tightly closeted elected official. He didn't come out until a seamy sexual/political scandal was threatening his office (a scandal that stemmed from some bad decisions he made, which he likely wouldn't have made were he openly gay at the time). I love Frank, but he's no Milk either.
Reply
He was closeted, but how many years has it been since he's been out, and vocally (at least publicly) pushed for gay rights legislation? Since the 1980s, right?
Reply
Rights are hard, they take time.
The Abolitionist movement in this country really started organizing in the 1750's, before we were this country. Slavery wasn't abolished until the 1860's, and African Americans didn't have full voting rights throughout the country until the 1960's. Discrimination, though illegal in many circumstances, is rampant.
The US Women's Suffrage movement got organized in the 1840's, and it took until 1920 before Women could vote in all states. Discrimination, though illegal in many circumstances, is rampant.
The Gay Rights movement didn't really organize in earnest until 1969. We do have a leg up, since we're not enslaved and already have voting rights. What seems like common sense to us is still terrifying and radical to large segments of the population. It's a disappointment, but not a surprise to me that discrimination is not only legal in many circumstances, but actually still legally required in some circumstances (eg. DOMA and DADT).
Yes, Frank could be a better leader, my point earlier is that he never got into politics to fight for Gay Rights, it's a cause he's adopted later in life.
Another point is that we need more leaders. I see a lot of noisy activists, but few people guiding them into productive directions.
how many years has it been since he's been out, and vocally (at least publicly) pushed for gay rights legislation? Since the 1980s, right?
He's been out since 1987. 1988 he was focused on an unsurprisingly contentious reelection campaign. I don't think he started seriously pushing on gay rights legislation until 1990.
Reply
You can't put the cart ahead of the horse. I think sometimes we forget that.
Reply
Reply
Reply
You could also make the argument that social acceptance of any minority that gains prominence is inevitable, so society's attitude shift would have happened eventually. Besides, securing those rights should be easier when social acceptance is broad. And there's less risk of a backlash (whether at the box office as we've experienced, or with blood and intimidation that happened with desegregation).
Reply
Look at the civil rights movement in the 1950s-60s. Social acceptance did not come first by any stretch of the imagination. First came rights. First came integration forced by judicial fiat. Then came laws, pushed through by a small vanguard of progressively-minded people. When the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act passed, they were firmly against public opinion. A solid majority of voters were wholeheartedly opposed to the laws. The public opinion polls on rights for black Americans changed only about five to ten years after rights had been conferred. After people were forced to deal with individuals they otherwise would never have spoken with. Social acceptance takes much longer to come organically than it does when political interference forces progress.
Reply
Leave a comment