Discussion

[tko_ak]

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

Comments

[cstardust]

Well, gay marriage is certainly something that we measure progress with. There are many instances in which we have progressed greatly, like with the elected gay officials that you mentioned, and protecting gays against hate crimes. I do feel, however, that once gay marriage is allowed/accepted worldwide, LGBTs have every last one of the same rights as straight people, and we are all treated the same, we will have reached full equality.

[tko_ak]

And yet it was only a couple of decades ago when the LGBT lobby was deriding the idea of gay marriage and certainly not focusing any efforts.

[jmintmilano]

please even once we there is marriage equality we won't get treated the same. Look at the treatment of blacks and latinos in this country. Technically they have equal rights on paper but almost never in practice.

[tko_ak]

Obviously prejudice, discrimination, and disproportionately are problems for any minority group. And racism is certainly alive and well. But I think you might be oversimplifying your point.

What right does a black or latino person have on paper but not in practice? I think you may be confusing political and legal rights with economic and educational opportunities.

Rights vs Social Acceptance

[gleef]

Well, some open homosexuals in politics have mediocre records on gay rights (Mary Cheney comes quickly to mind, though admittedly she's not an elected official). Still, for the most part I'd say having a good representation in politics does lots of good, in the long run, in the fight for rights.

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

Re: Rights vs Social Acceptance

[tko_ak]

Your points are well made. Without social acceptance, the rights can be negated. We've seen what resentment voters have if they feel gay marriage was thrust upon them by judicial fiat. And it wasn't until Harvey Milk was elected that SF passed gay protections, so there's something to be said for having a formal voice in the political process.

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.

Re: Rights vs Social Acceptance

[gleef]

If they're closeted, then they're not openly gay. Even Senator Craig, if he decided to run in 2008 instead of step down, had a long way to go before I'd consider him "openly gay".

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

Re: Rights vs Social Acceptance

[tko_ak]

That's all true, but my point is that he is in the leadership (of the majority party) and has a high profile. I'm not saying he's single-handedly responsible for gay rights, just that he hasn't been effective as our most visible leader. That isn't necessarily his fault, but it is an accurate observation.

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?

[mizzoumark]

It certainly suggests that there is a disconnect in the average voter who has no problem having a gay person lead them but does not want them to have the basic rights they have. Still, as others have said, having prominent gay elected officials will help us in the long run. It's continued proof that more and more people don't think of us as evil boogymen who are out to corrupt their children.

[gleef]

This sounds like a good place to share this:

[tko_ak]

I know Milk alluded to this, but you should still post it as its own entry in the community.

[fabfemmeboy]

I don't think it should be solely based on gay marriage, but I don't think that who wins an election is the yardstick by which acceptance should be determined. There are way too many other factors in an election to say that sexuality pushed them over the edge. There's also a bit of a cause-and-effect issue - more acceptance overall means more openly-gay people run for office in the first place, etc.

[tko_ak]

At least some people read the article.

What elected office is that?