Things aren’t looking good for Democrats on Election Day, and although the party isn’t yet synonymous with LGBTQ rights, exactly, it is increasingly on our side in the political battles, with some rare exceptions. The Senate looks like a lost cause, and Republicans may add to their majority in the House.
If there is any bright spot at all, it’s at the state level. Democrats look like they might win some key governors’ races, including a historic one in Maine.
Here’s a look at some of the battleground states where Democrats have a strong chance of winning–and homophobes a strong chance of losing.
Maine
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Rep. Mike Michaud (right) has the chance to become the first openly gay man to be elected governor. (In 2004, with his then wife at his side, New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey came out as “a gay American” at the same time he announced his resignation.) Michaud is running in a tight race against incumbent Paul LePage, a Tea Party favorite and all-around wingnut.
A third candidate, Eliot Cutler, had been siphoning support from Michaud, but last week announced his supporters were free to vote for whomever they pleased, after Sen. Angus King, an independent, switched his endorsement from Cutler to Michaud. With Cutler backing away from the race, the odds of Michaud winning look much better.
Michaud got a big boost last week when President Obama came to Portland to stump for the candidate. Obama remains popular among Democrats, and his appearance in Maine was clearly an effort to motivate the base.
When Michaud came out a year ago, even his gay and lesbian colleagues in Congress were caught off guard. His campaign is so low-key about his sexuality than it’s not included in his bio on the campaign website or even in the section detailing his support for LGBT issues. Still, his victory would be a thumb in the eye for Maine’s religious right and the awful LePage, and that alone would be worth his winning.
Pennsylvania
Incumbent Republican Tom Corbett is heading to certain defeat, thanks to his inability to be anyone other than his idiotic self. As a reminder, Corbett once compared marriage equality to incest. He’s also run an administration that has pretty much managed to piss off just about everybody in the state. As a added twist, his conservative staffers spent their office hours trading X-rated material over government email. (It was straight adult film, of course.) About the only thing in Corbett’s favor was that he threw in the towel when marriage equality became inevitable in the state.
The Democrat, Tom Wolf, has been assiduously courting the LGBT vote (although with Corbett as an opponent, it’s not as if he has to try hard). He was quick to condemn the brutal gay bashing of a couple in Philadelphia and even engaged in a gay pub crawl in Philadelphia on Halloween. Ahead by double digits, Wolf can be forgiven if he had a few celebratory drinks with the boys a few days ahead of the final results.
Florida
If the incumbent Republican were someone other than Rick Scott, the prospect of electing one-time Republican governor and affirmatively heterosexual Charlie Crist wouldn’t exactly count as a victory. But Scott, who made his fortune running the Hospital Corporation of America, which later settled the largest ever fraud case in U.S. history, has earned a well-deserved reputation as a douchebag. Among his first acts as governor was removing protections for LGBT Floridians, and he subsequently flirted with returning to the 1990s by banning gay adoptions.
Now a Democrat, Crist is no prize package either. As governor, he was an ardent defender of the state’s ban on gay adoptions and opponent of marriage equality. When it comes to his past opposition to LGBT rights, Crist is now fluent in grovel, having scoured the thesaurus for every possibly synonym for “sorry.”
Polls give Crist a slight edge. Just don’t be surprised if most Floridians emerged from the ballot box on Tuesday holding their noses.
Kansas
Yes, Kansas. The Republican stronghold is about to prove that there are limits to how far right a party can careen. Incumbent Governor Sam Brownback has allied himself with the most extreme elements of the party, including the Christian right. He has declared “Days of Restoration” during which he encouraged Kansans to “collectively repent of distancing ourselves from God and ask for His mercy on us.” For the state’s gay pride celebration, Brownback banned the use of flagpoles because they were “weapons.”
And that’s only during his stint as governor. As a U.S. Senator, Brownback blocked George W. Bush’s nomination of Janet Neff to U.S. District Court because she had attended a lesbian commitment ceremony. He also urged the Senate to pass a resolution honoring noted homophobe and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson.
Needless to say, Brownback has been threatening to stand at the chapel door with an ax handle to prevent marriage equality in his state. He’s pledged to aggressively battle marriage equality in the courts, even though it’s a lost cause.
That’s not the reason why Brownback is on the road to losing to Democrat Paul Davis. It’s that Brownback’s experiment in voodoo economics has essentially incinerated the Kansas economy.
Davis would be a step up (well, algae would be a step up), but it’s not as if he will be the standard bearer for LGBT issues in the state. He’s basically steered clear of taking a position on marriage equality, saying “that issue is now in the court system and there’s nothing we’re going to be able to do about it.”
Still, neutrality would be a lot better than out and out hostility.
zoomlens
The Florida governor’s race reminds me of the episode of South Park where the kids’ school is holding an election to pick a new school mascot, and the choices are a Giant Douche or a Turd Sandwich. Because Stan doesn’t like either mascot, he refuses to vote and is banished from town until he learns the importance of voting. He eventually is allowed to return after he learns a lesson about democracy: sometimes you have to pick between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich. This is the truth that Floridians will experience tomorrow.
MarionPaige
Not big deal right? White Queens are invincible to political turnabouts in the senate and house, right? Like, what was the big deal about eight years of George Bush, White Queens still eventually got gay fucking marriage? So what if Bush got to appoint Roberts chief justice?
White Queen Activists however are not The Gay Community and, actual gay people have a lot to lose with a “conservative” controlled Congress.
Back in the day, when Reagan finally managed to pack the Supreme Court with “conservatives”, Congress was the only thing that prevented The US Supreme Court from gutting a Reconstruction Era Civil Rights Law. When the Supreme Court tried to re-interpret the law, Congress passed law stating that The Supreme Court’s re-interpretation of the law was in error (that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the intent of Congress was in error).
AND HERE YOU HAVE IT! – What Conservative control of Both The House and Senate can mean to actual gay people. Congress can pass law holding that The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the intent of Congress (the constitution) via Lawrence and other Gay Rights gains related laws WAS IN ERROR.
If Conservatives on The Supreme Court had no problem claiming that 100+ years of case law in re Title 42 Section 1981 was in error, why would a Conservative controlled Congress have a problem with reversing gay rights gains (and abortion rights)?
Of course, White Queen Activists probably see conservative control of Congress as a fund raising opportunity, since their money doesn’t come from actual gay people.
MarionPaige
When deciding on how to “interpret” the Constitution, the courts, litigators, current congress research the discussions that took place on the floors of congress when a certain law was passed. For example, as previously said, a litigator actually argued that parts of The Constitution does not apply to Black People because the original Congress that drafted the constitution never intended that Blacks be treated as equal to Whites.
With a conservative controlled congress the “question” of whether Congress intended that people of the same sex have the same benefits of marriage as mix sex couples could become a factor in whether or not a new conservative controlled congress reverses Supreme Court divisions in re DOMA.
So, if there is a fucking Queen somewhere out there with text showing that the original Congress intended that same sex couples have the same martial rights as mix sex couples, please, speak the fuck up!
MarionPaige
again, and again, with White Gay Fucking Marriage Queent has been this myopic focus on a insignificant fucking skirmish (gay fucking marriage) at the expense of losing the fucking war. All the while there has been this focus on gay fucking marriage, conservative numbers on the supreme court and in congress have been increasing using gay fucking marriage as the motivator for inciting conservatives to the polls.
I guess when the police again have the right to come into your homes and arrest you for engaging in gay sex, you can take some relief in knowing that a handful of fucking lesbians can marry now.
jjose712
MarionPaige: You need to take your meds, you seem on the verge of a heart attack
Bryguyf69
I’m surprised you didn’t mention New York, where liberal Democrat Andrew Cuomo will easily win a second term. For those who don’t know, he is the son of former NY governor and Democratic powerbroker Mario Cuomo, and brother of CNN (and former ABC) journalist, Chris Cuomo. None of this is news but…
Cuomo angered many AIDS activists (thus gays) when he aligned himself with NJ’s Chris Christie and enacted an Ebola quarantine. In fact, his own HIV commission signed a letter condemning him. Legendary activist Peter Staley, who is on the commission, blasted Cuomo on Anderson Cooper’s AC360. As a researcher myself, I also skewered him on social media. We were all shocked that such a progressive leader would pander to ignorance and fear. The bottom line is that there is no medically valid reason to enact such a quarantine. Hence the lack of support from virtually all EBola experts, including the CDC and Doctors without Borders. Yet Cuomo decided to lead by polls (and ignorance) rather than facts. As a response, I sent his team a sharply worded email explaining why — for the first time since I turned 18 — I’m not voting in the gubernatorial elections.
aliengod
@MarionPaige: Although this was a very difficult read, I think I may agree with you. If what you’re trying to say is that we’ve been so hyper-focused on “gay fucking marriage” that we’ve lost sight of other important issues, I can see some truth in that. If that’s not what you’re saying, my apologies. At times it was hard to read past “white queen activists” and “gay fucking marriage”.
Bryguyf69
@MarionPaige: What are you talking about? Cite one poll not targeted toward gays that lists gay marriage as a top 5 voting motivator this year. Social issues don’t break the top 5 in any poll I’ve seen. It’s all about the economy and homeland security. So no, gay marriage has NOT been a successful rallying cry for Conservatives. Nor should it be since virtually all their losses have been JUDICIAL, not Legislative. The vast majority of states that now allow gay marriage do so because of the Courts — not because of laws enacted by Congress. As such, these elections are virtually powerless to affect gay marriage unless you believe in the improbability of a DOMA Amendment to the Constitution. Even diehard Conservatives don’t believe that one can get ? of the House and Senate, AND ¾ of the States to ratify such an Amendment.
If anything, now is the perfect time to focus on gay marriage. That’s because 1) Conservatives are focused elsewhere, i.e. Obamacare. 2) The polls show that a majority of American approve gay marriage. 3) The Courts have ruled in our favor 22 times, with 0 losses. 4) Gay relationships are normalized in the media, i.e. by top rated shows, Modern Family, Two and a Half Men, and all Shonda Rhimes dramas. 5) Even the Pope has recognized gay unions as beneficial. All this means that there is little opposition. Sure a few people will scream and yell, but the Courts have spoken. And once the masses get used to gay marriage, and realize that straight marriages are unaffected, and society wasn’t destroyed, there will be no impetus to even debate the issue. That’s what this period of relative calm is: A chance for America to get used to it. As such, it’s a great time for LGBTs to quietly fortify gay marriage as an institution.
Finally, if you think “the police again have the right to come into your homes and arrest you for engaging in gay sex,” you obviously haven’t read SCOTUS’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision. And if you think that it will be overturned, you need to read up on the Legislative process and Judicial Review. Not to mention
Gallup polls since 1986’s Bowers v. Hardwick.
MarionPaige
can you not read? in the 1980’s The US Supreme Court re-interpreted a Civil Rights Law passed during Reconstruction. Congress then passed law saying that the Supreme Court re-interpretation of the law was in error.
Here you have ( a ) an example of a newly conservative reconstituted Supreme Court changing 100+ years of case law; and ( b ) a Congress shooting down A US Supreme Court decision.
REPEAT: Enough Conservatives on the Supreme Court can re-interpret EXISTING law. And, enough conservatives in Congress can shot down Supreme Court decisions. CONGRESS CAN PASS LAW saying that The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the constitution in re Lawrence was in error.
Really, I was going to say that I don’t understand why more Gay people are not upset with the Gay Fucking Marriage Propaganda Machine but actually, I think all thinking sane Gay People are upset that a handful of delusional fucking Queens actually had an impact on electing George Bush president.
MarionPaige
one of the long standing refuges for “minorities” in America when the Presidency or Congress has been taken over by people who do not “share” their interests was that CASE LAW was ironclad. Blacks, for the longest time, could take some satisfaction that no new Republican President and / or no new Conservative controlled Congress could or would dare try go destroy ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF CASE LAW. Well, in the 1980’s, as soon as Reagan packed the Supreme Court with conservatives. the Supreme Court set about destroying 100+ years of Case law in re Title 42 Section 1981.
When you are faced with people who KNOW NO LIMITS and who are NOT ABOVE RE-INTERPRETING 100 YEAR OLD LAWS AND REVERSING AGE OLD SUPREME COURT DECISIONS …. well, I guess you end up in my position when you see some delusional fucking WHITE Queen bragging about what AFER did.
Bryguyf69
@aliengod wrote “we’ve been so hyper-focused on “gay fucking marriage” that we’ve lost sight of other important issues”
===
What other important gay POLITICAL issues are those? Note that every SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage can, and will, be cited in future cases because the opinions have all been based on equal protection. That means the arguments used by the judges will be applicable in cases regarding employment discrimination, housing discrimination, etc. So I’m puzzled as to why anyone would think that this is wasted energy, or a distraction. And frankly, how much resource hasve LGBTs used on gay marriage? Not much, since most of the movement has been caused by individuals suing the state — not by lobbying Congress. That means few resources are used: 1) the litigants, i.e. Windsor, 2) a few attorneys and their support staff, i.e. David Boies and Ted Olson, and 3) and a few organizations and individuals who provide amicus briefs and advice. How is that “hyper focusing”?
MarionPaige
YOU still don’t get that Republican control of the Supreme Court or Congress can REVERSE existing gains. A New Conservatively controlled Supreme Court can re-interpret the intent of Congress (to change existing law and case law) and, a Conservative controlled Congress can pass law holding that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of law (the intent of Congress) was in error. It is no secret that Conservatives intend to make abortion illegal if they gain control of Congress.
MarionPaige
correction, Conservatives intend to make abortion illegal for White People. Forced abortions and sterilizations for Blacks and Hispanic will probably be legal. But this is no way affects White Queens (or their right to fucking marry)
Bryguyf69
@MarionPaige wrote “can you not read?”
===
When you begin a post with an insult, I know the rest will be a [mostly irrational] rant. And I wasn’t disappointed. First off, when you ask, “can you not read,” you have to first specify who “you” is. Queerty gives an easy way to do that. Simply use REPLY, and the person you are addressing is specified. Second, as @aliengod stated, your writing is nearly impossible to read. In fact, I gave up after the third sentence and just skimmed the rest. In all seriousness, learn to write a proper sentence because whatever you’re trying to say is muddled.
From the little bits that made sense, you seem to be making a paranoiac argument based on improbabilities. And nowhere did you make any LOGICAL connection between gay marriage and whatever you were rambling about. How are the two mutually exclusive? WHere is the proof? And give me one example where the Legislative Branch nullified the Judicial Branch. Don’t rant to me abut theoretical possibilities; tell me about probabilities and actual cases. When has a law been passed to nullify a SCOTUS ruling? And of course, you ignore the fact that neither the SCOTUS nor Congress live in a vacuum, i.e. Gallup polls have shown a consistent INCREASING acceptance of gay rights and gay marriage since the 80’s. Given this environment, what is the PROBABILITY that Lawrence would be reversed?
You claim that LGBTs is wasting energy on gay marriage, How ironic since it’s you’re the one wasting energy ranting about a non-issue. But hey, it’s your energy so go ahead. But don’t expect me to read your muddled prose or respond.
jockboy1986
@MarionPaige:
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz….
MarionPaige
Congress reversed a Supreme Court decision in the 1980’s in which the Supreme Court re-interpreted Title 42 Section 1981 when it passed (I think) The Civil Rights Act of 1991
A Newly Conservative Controlled Supreme court claimed that Title 42 Section 1981 could not be used to combat racial discrimination in the workplace, even though there was 100+ years of case law already on the books in which Title 42 Section 1981 had been applied to discrimination in the workplace, the new Conservative Supreme Court ruled that the law could only be applied to NOT BE HIRED because of race.
All that Title 42 Section 1981 says is that “Blacks have the same right to contract as Whites” It was passed during reconstruction to help newly freed slaves. Now,
Jump forward to the 1980’s and some how a Reconstruction Era Civil Rights Law is too progressive.
cutemikey
@MarionPaige: You must be a big hit at parties.
(In case you’re too dense to detect it, I am being sarcastic).
How many words can you utter before people inevitably walk away?
MarionPaige
Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164 (1988), which held that an employee could not sue for damages caused by racial harassment on the job, because even if the employer’s conduct were discriminatory, the employer had not denied the employee the “same right . . . to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens,” the language that Congress chose when passing the law in 1866
THIS is the Supreme Court decision that Congress “essentially” reversed.
expressionlessanger
@Bryguyf69: I agree. The fight for gay marriage is time well-spent. Especially when you consider the cultural implications of marriage. Nice analysis, by the way. re: @MarionPaige, don’t waste your time replying. There are people you should just let rave and rant until they get tired and fade away…
MarionPaige
it’s just not sinking in … think Berlin prior to the Nazis
aliengod
@Bryguyf69: I really wasn’t referring to more important “gay issues”. I just meant there are more important political issues than where one stands on gay marriage (immigration, gun control, national debt, defense spending, militarization of police, abortion, etc.).
I think in agreeing with @MarionPaige I’ve hitched my wagon to a horse with no legs. He’s referring to something completely different. Sorry.
Bryguyf69
@aliengod: Ah, I understand and completely agree. No one, including gays, should be one-issue voters. There are certainly many more important issues than gay marriage, but within gay politics, I think gay marriage is pretty important — especially given the confluence of factors I mentioned above. I guess what I objected to most was @MarionPaige’s contention that spending energy on gay marriage is somehow detrimental to other gay issues. I don’t see the competition. They all contribute to full equality
On a related note, I’m watching the elections as I type and it’s pretty depressing, although not unexpected. Actually, I’m wrong; there are some unexpected disappointments, i.e. Gillespie is beating Warner in Virgina. Obama is the problem. Although I’m still a fan, and appreciate all he’s done for LGBTs, I never forgave him for the unrepentent NSA spying. So like most Americans, even a big fan like me found a reason to dislike him. Not enough to vote GOP though. And I fully acknowledge that no other president within the last 100 years have had to deal with so many issues, some beyond his control: wars, disease, terrorism, the Middle East, China, Russia (in other words, the Cold War renewed), immigration (including the unaccompanied children from Central Ameerica), the economy, domestic and international spying, embarrassing revelations (i.e. eavesdropping on Angela Merkel), etc. Poor guy!
MarionPaige
Bryguyf69 “spending energy on gay marriage is somehow detrimental to other gay issues”
the issue that gay marriage was sucking up money away from other gay “causes” has been continually raised by a lot of gay non-profits that are not in the gay marriage game.
the most obvious “gay cause” neglected is the right of gay people not to be fired from their jobs because they are gay. And,
The “neglect” of this issue is particularly striking in light of the fact that it would actually help gay media (in a major way) as much as individual gay people.
It is no mystery that the majority of advertising in gay media can be classified as EEO advertising, i.e. advertising by corporate America that is motivated by companies wanting to claim that they support Equal Employment Opportunity / Rights for Gay People. Well, with a Gay Civil Rights Act of 1964 for Gay People, THOUSANDS (hundreds of thousands) more corporations would have a legal incentive to do EEO advertising. In effect, every employer in America with more than 6 employees would have an incentive to advertise in Gay Media. However,
The Queens elected to focus on Gay Marriage instead of Workplace Protection for Gay People. AND WHY?
My answer is that Corporate America doesn’t want a Gay Civil Rights Act of 1964 and therefore Corporate America wouldn’t “fund” a campaign for such a law.
CoachS
@Bryguyf69: Great, well thought out, cogent comments. Not always the standard around here. I almost want to disagree with you so that we could have a discussion… but we appear to be on 80 percent of the same page. Thanks for bringing some sanity to the party.
Kangol
Oh well, it looks like Wolf won in Pennsylvania, which is good.
But otherwise the GOP won big in many parts of the country, including Democratic-leaning states. GOP candidates are leading the governors’ races in Massachusetts and Maryland, and ousted Democratic governor Pat Quinn in Illinois. In the Senate races, the GOP have won decisively and now have full control of that legislative body, while also expanding their lead in the US House. Not looking good for Michaud at this point, and Christ and Davis have lost.
Brownback, a fiscal disaster during his first term, and an anti-gay fanatic, somehow won reelection….
boring
I’m over here in Oregon blazing up going all “WHAT BAD NEWS?”
Saint Law
Marion being very generous with his crazee I see.
“You’re spoiling us, Ambassador!”
BJ McFrisky
Scott Walker 2016!