Dem 'Traitors'

In case you missed it, Frank Rich's piece on gay rights in the March 5 New York magazine -- "Whitewashing Gay History: Liberals applaud themselves for championing gay marriage. But there are ghosts at the weddings" -- is definitely worth a read HERE.

Although he makes a compelling argument about the need to continue to put pressure on liberals, no matter how pro-gay -- very John Aravosis-esque! -- my Bubba bias was still largely unswayed by his well-constructed argument to make Bill Clinton out to be nearly as bad as George W. Bush when it comes to gay rights. While it was sobering to be reminded that Chuck Schumer, Patty Murray, Frank Lautenberg, Joe Biden and Harry Reid wound up voting for the Clinton-"approved" Defense of Marriage Act -- something Rich is quick to point out was a "strictly right-wind politcal ploy cooked up for the year of Clinton's re-election campaign" sparked largely by the Republican base's lack of enthusiasm for opponent Bob Dole -- he seems to contradict himself when he reminds us that politics are unpredictable. While he mindful to tell us that a President Santorum or President Romney (unlikely as it is) could happen, there is not even a mention of where we might be if there had been a President Dole -- a possibility that would have been 10 times more likely if he had been able to run campaign ads claiming Bill Clinton "wants flaming homosexuals to get married in YOUR church!" Something they surely would have done had he vetoed the bill, which would have then become law anyway. (Am I off-base on this: Didn't Gingrich have the votes to override a veto?) I'm not saying Clinton was perfect on gay rights. But if we are going to throw out all of these hypothetical situations -- and go out of our way to point out liberals' role in the obstacles to gay civil rights, shouldn't we consider them all fairly?

UPDATE: Unswayed by my argument? Listen to what someone who thinks Clinton's actions helped save his life. (BTW: It sounds like he didn't actually read what I wrote -- go figure, a gay guy who doesn't like to listen but LOVES to talk! -- but his point is well-taken nonetheless!

Mike writes:
Perhaps it is the 10 years age difference, but Kenneth, there are points requiring consideration. First, before DOMA, there was DADT. And, the queer [pun intended] thing is that in the moment, DADT was proposed as a method of widening gay rights so that gay/lesbian service members could remain in the military. It was a measure that Ron Dellums, the ever left Berkeley democratic Congressman sponsored legislation blue printed by the Clinton White House and voted for by Barney Frank [the only major and active voice against DADT came of your home state conservative Barry Goldwater who commented that the only thing service members needed to know about gay and straight, is to shoot straight.]

With the background that DADT was actually to benefit gays/lesbians, and with the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage, DOMA was a cushion for slowing things down. DOMA was actually sponsored by Clinton with his lapdog Richard Socarides [IMHO, as bad as Ken Mehlman].

Now, also take into account, that HIV/AIDS was still running rampant in numbers of infections and deaths. To HRC and other national gay rights groups, their top priority was securing federal funding for treatment, research, abatement and hospice. HRC actually turned down the Hawaiian's request for funds and sponsorship as marriage would drastically reduce abilities to foster the much needed HIV/AIDS funding.

Politics is balancing competing needs. As someone who is alive today because HIV/AIDS funding was finally moved to the front of action, I along with all the other HIV+s benefited from that funding priority though it capped my civil rights. Not right, not wrong, the way it was.

--Oops, had a bit more but gotta run--