Recently Commented

RSS

Colophon

David Hauslaib
Editorial Director
David Hauslaib | Email

Andrew Belonsky
Editor
Andrew Belonsky | Email

Jossip
Publisher
Jossip Initiatives

— Tue, Dec 12, 2006 —
The Boundaries Issue: Lane Hudson
Foley Fire Starter Wants To Break More Boundaries

LaneH.jpg
For today's installment of The Boundaries Issue, we'd like to open the floor to Mr. Lane Hudson. As we're sure you're all aware, Hudson's the once-mysterious Human Rights Campaign employee who lost his job after posting Mark Foley's naughty messages to Congressional pages. Those messages, of course, cost Foley his job, among other things.

After the jump see what Hudson has to say about breaking political boundaries, American heroes and former President Bill Clinton. In true Hudson style, his words will undoubtedly elicit a reaction.

And don't forget to check out Hudson's blog: News for The Left.

The political world is made of boundaries. Most of these boundaries are artificial: constructed around the idea of the “appropriate”. Sum it all up and you get a big ol’ bastion of the status quo.

These static ideas allowed the Republican Congress to become a rubber stamp for the Bush Administration. These same parameters permitted Mark Foley to be a serial sex predator. As with all constrictive norms, these stagnant pools of behavior prevent social and political progress. It’s time to break those boundaries.

We live in an era when public opinion polls shape national policy. Politicians use them to craft their platforms, wavering with each new percentage point. These political maneuverings lead to disinterested politicians, sapping essential transformative passion. It’s pretty darn difficult to be passionate about an issue you don’t believe in, isn’t it?

The last time the public engaged in an optimistic national campaign was Bill Clinton’s 1992 Presidential Campaign. We all remember the slogan, “It all began in a place called Hope.” That campaign rocked the proverbial boat. Clinton engaged not only the baby boomer generation, but the elusive, allegedly apathetic Generation X, as well. He connected with average Americans like no one else. He never would have survived the potentially disastrous Gennifer Flowers scandal if voters weren’t enamored with his social and political buoyancy.

Once elected President, Clinton ran his Administration in a way that consistently engaged a majority of Americans. This included appointing the most diverse Cabinet and White House Staff in history. Everyone felt like they had a seat at the table of Government. Clinton’s inclusiveness helped him survive the historic impeachment and subsequent Senate trial. Despite being dragged through the dirt and inauspicious odds, he left office with sky-high approval ratings.

Before Clinton came along, we had John F. Kennedy, a man with whom Clinton has more than just womanizing in common. They were both young Presidents who represented a new generation of leadership. Both men brought a true sense of hope for change and took similar steps toward achieving their goals. It seems these progressive, forward-looking leaders come along every generation or so – let’s hope the next one comes sooner rather than later.

We need a politician with a strong set of core beliefs, one who will consistently and – more importantly - passionately advocate those values. Polls shouldn’t shape policy. They should tell politicians how much they have to persuade people their policies help the country. The strongest supporters a politician can have are those whose minds have changed. Swing voters of late have switched sides because they oppose a candidate or party, rather because they prefer the competition: a sad testament to the state of political involvement in our country.

Every President who has been a strong advocate for social issues has been remembered as a great leader. A president who embraces gay rights will be no different. We cannot and should not, however, assume this mythical leader will independently push for our rights. We must continue to speak out loud for equal rights.

We as gay communities must not cede this debate to the right wing wackos who are determined to taint the Constitution with their narrow definition of marriage. Of course, change involves some national discomfort - in fact, it’s of utmost importance in the fight for social progress.

To extend political boundaries, we must first push beyond our own.

Comments


No. 1
Michael says:

I consider Lane Hudson a hero and his bravery led to the Democrats taking control of Congress! Thank you Lane Hudson for all you did for the country and for the GLBT community in stopping the homophobic GOP Congress...so now we have a respite from banning same sex marriage and hopefully a start to an end to "don't ask don't tell" and maybe passage of Hate Crimes and Employment Non Discrimination laws...even if Bush vetoes them....it is a start...thanks again, Lane Hudson...a true Super Hero!

December 12, 2006 2:13 PM
No. 2
Paul Raposo says:

I don't think Clinton should be much of a hero to the GLBT community, considering he brought in DOMA; Don't Ask, Don't Tell; and never brought in federal anti-discrimination laws, or hate laws to protect GLBT's like he promised he would.

Unfortunately for American GLBT's, Hilary is his carbon copy and has a shot at being pres in 2008.

December 12, 2006 5:04 PM
No. 3
Michael says:

Paul, you said it 100 per cent correct as to Bill Clinton..the two key issues for our GLBT community...same sex marriage and abolish don't ask don't tell..created thanks to Bill Clinton signing them into law.....and I find Hillary a corporate carbon copy of Bill..they are all about them and not about any one else..but I do believe that at least Bill Clinton did his best to try and engender hope, create diversity in the government...I give him credit for that....he just triangulated the hell out of government and gave us in the GLBT crumbs after he screwed the hell out of us for a generation or two or more....

I am not a fan of either Clinton....

December 12, 2006 7:19 PM
No. 4
Leland says:

Michael and Paul, you've been brainwashed and you don't even know it. It's appalling the misinformation about Clinton that even some Democratic gays have—no doubt the result of disinformation campaigns by the fucking gay Repugnants.

1. DADT: Some know-nothings actually believe that the US military only starting discriminating against gays as a result of this compromise forced on Clinton. His biggest "crime" regarding this, if you can call it that, was totally underestimating how deep and rabid homophobia was in the Pentagon and some members of Congress. He thought he could simply issue an executive order permitting gays to openly serve but was swarmed by pigs like Colon [sic] Powell and Sam Nunn and dry-fucked every way this side of Fire Island. Powell, who was then head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff threatened to resign and Nunn, genuinely homophobic, too, but more motivated by wanting to get even with Clinton for passing over him for Secty of Defense, proved what an experienced and ruthless Washington insider he was by outmaneuvering Clinton in Congress. The military columnist for “Newsweek” actually suggested Clinton might be assassinated if he appeared on a military base. The hysteria dominated the first weeks of his administration and Nunn, et al., made it clear that not only would they override any executive order he issued re military gays, but any of his other programs would go nowhere until he backed down—effectively threatening to bring his Presidency to a stand still. Out of that grew the “compromise” DADT which, in concept, could easily be filed under “what I do in my private life is no one’s business,” but the homohysterics at the Pentagon have repeatedly violated it in spirit and practice.

2. DOMA: While Clinton is more culpable on this subject, too many believe it is a total ban on gay marriage. In fact, it only prevents the federal government from recognizing gay marriages, but leaves states open to legalize them within their own borders and offer any accompanying state-controlled rights. On the other hand, it says that one state does not have to recognize a gay marriage that is legal in another state. All of that is a far cry from the gay bashing that Bush has been doing for years and the amendment to the US Constitution that he would implement. Again, Clinton, under siege from a multimillion dollar hate campaign [“the Arkansas project”] by the American Taliban even before he took office, tried to appease them.

3. Non-discrimination laws: Despite the opposition of the antigay industry, Clinton DID issue an Executive Order mandating job protection for gay federal employees, which was frozen when Bush took office. He also employed more out gay men and women in his administration than any President before or since, and appointed the first out US Ambassador.

Painting him in only black & white shades of alleged betrayal neither serves the historical facts nor our futures.

December 13, 2006 5:49 PM
No. 5
Paul Raposo says:

Nevertheless Leland, these policies were signed into law and enacted under Clinton's watch. He has never allowed himself to be backed into a corner, not even during the impeachment trial and certainly not with DADT. He wanted to forget his promise of dropping the ban on gays in the military and DADT was merely an out for him. He was more relieved with the outcome, than were any anti-gay opponants.

DOMA, it's federal ban not withstanding, was used in 1996 as a means to stop Hawaii's pursuit of state-wide ssm.

And lastly, laws protecting federal GLBT's employees is great. But that doesn't change the fact that Clinton and Gore campaigned in 1996 for the enactment of anti-discrimination and anti-hate laws for all Americans and when the vote came up, Gore votedg a tie breaking nea and the issue was not revisited.

Clinton has never done anything for anyone other than himself. You're welcome to believe that he was a boon to GLBT's, but his record belies that belief.

What I got a kick out of, was that in his book, he devotes a whole three pages to DADT and blames everything that went wrong on gays. If we hadn't of pushed him, he wouldn't have had to sign the bill into law. He doesn't even mention DOMA. Pathetic

December 13, 2006 9:58 PM

Post Your Comments





Note: It may take up to a minute for your comments submission to be processed. Please do not click "Post" more than once, or your comments may be duplicated.



Email This Post

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Advertisement
Welcome to Queerty. The gay blog.

Email your editors!
holla@queerty.com

Stereohyped

Promotion

Advertise on Queerty

Site Map