Last June, New York Senate Republcans James Alesi, Mark Grisanti, Roy McDonald, and Stephen Saland voted along with 28 Democrats to pass the state’s historic marriage equality bill. So to thank them, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, gay philanthropist Tim Gill, and hedge fund manager Paul Singer helped chair a fundraiser to collect $1.25 million for their re-election campaigns—it’s called supporting your allies.
But more interestingly major Republican, Democratic, and independent donors attended the party, suggesting that the future of equality legislation rests in our ability not only to persuade Republicans and independents to support our civil rights, but also to finance their re-election campaigns when foes like the National Organization of Marriage seek to take them out in the next election cycle.
Image via DonkeyHotey
Kurt
Why is that news? We have always done that. Contrary to the GayRepubs crying that the Movement is partisan, we have always supported those who support us. It is just that 9 times out of ten…
Cam
More likely is that some of the northern moderate republicans will continue to support gay rights. The southern ones will never do that, and if the tea Party gains more power they never will.
But if enough large states like New York, and eventually CA. have equality the Supreme Court will not have a choice but to grant full equality.
the crustybastard
Conservative gays can afford to finance the few LGBT-friendly Republicans. Shouldn’t be a big lift.
Jim Hlavac
Gayness is not a political position, no more than heterosexuality is a political position We must be friends, make friends, with both, with everyone, in fact. As Harvey Milk said, we will not win with laws, we will win with hearts and minds. And to keep up this pretense that because I’m gay I must support the Democratic Party is nuts. I have been a Goldwater Republican for 35 years (As Goldwater said, Mr. Conservative himself: “Gay deserve full constitutional rights including marriage and military service” and he said that in 1994, just before Democrat Bill Clinton signed DOMA and DADT — and Clinton, mind you, as Attorney General of Arkansas got that state’s first “sodomy” statute passed in 1974 (yes, no law against sissy smooching in Arkansas until Clinton, oh well,) — and I began writing to William F. Buckley of National Review and R. Emmett Tyrrell of American Spectator (two major right wing magazines) 35 years ago to work to convince them to change their hearts and minds; I still write them, with my ammo of “As a 35 year reader of your magazine you are wrong on gays … here’s why…”
If we make this a strict Dem-Repub issue, one for, one against, we are doomed. And might I remind people here that African-Americans are very set against us, and vote 95% Democrat — when will we work with them for smooching in peace? Go ask Democrat Ruben Diaz, he thinks we’re “worthy of death.” Which gay Democrats will call him out? I have heard none, none.
And I wonder, why always try to make it a “left-right” issue? We are a thing apart from it all — currently the Republican theocrats are anti-gay — but back in the ’70s and ’80s, the last few states, well, 24, with “sodomy” statutes, were mostly Democrat run Southern states — who do you think was running Georgia in 1986 when Bowers v Hardwick went to court?
We, as gay men (I don’t seem to see any lesbians here, maybe I’m wrong…,) must speak to both sides — and then, if we disagree on say, the IRS or the Dept of Commerce, we can agree or disagree as Americans, and not as “gay” people. Again, this is not a “left-right” issue — the Lefties who run Russia (what, ex-commies are lefties?) are quite gay opposed — and so, yes, work with both sides, endlessly, until finally, one day, we are simply no more an issue. Until that day — work with both, ceaselessly.
Robert in NYC
The thing is, how many repbulicans are pro-equality in the House and Senate compared to the Democrats? Even if CA gets marriage equality back, what makes anyone think the 5 very conservative catholic republican judges in the SCOTUS would strike down DOMA and declare same-sex marriage legal? I don’t see it happening.
Cam
@Jim Hlavac: said…
“As Harvey Milk said, we will not win with laws, we will win with hearts and minds.”
__________________________
And that is the attitude that has kept us from getting rights all these years.
Large numbers of people in Alabama and Mississippi still believe in keeping separate races from marrying. Should interacial couples wanting to marry have waited to win hearts and minds that never changed? No, the laws are what took care of that.
I don’t care if somebody likes what I am or not. To say that my civil rights should depend on whether or not the Fred Phelps has changed his mind about gays is idiotic.
Tony
Sure, because having our rights means letting the poor suffer and other minorities get fucked over. Gay people can be such assholes!
perdeep
Personally speaking, my vote isn’t a single issue decision. I don’t care how gay-friendly a candidate is–I won’t vote for him or her if s/he doesn’t also uphold the other values I strongly believe in, like welfare for the elderly and fair taxing. Aside from getting married, I’d also like the right to know my parents will be cared for in their old age and the right to look a down-on-his-luck fellow man in the eye. I fundamentally disagree with the Republican economic policy, and no amount of “gay-friendliness” can change that.
(I also personally believe that any TRUE gay-friendly person wouldn’t also stand for the ultimately sexist, racist, and classist policies of the current Republican party.)
Ex-Log Cabin
Whoever is floating the concept of “gay friendly Republican” is dreaming. Jerry Falwell’s crowd saw to that. The South has risen again. If you haven’t noticed, the clan is running the Republican party these days. Ronnie Reagan would be called a flamming liberal.
ostsee
Liberal Turn,executive quickly advise scale branch up tonight couple answer violence over pound environment grow conduct plenty reveal nor expense call belong late sufficient between expenditure finger front remind drive exhibition sister both evidence except again ancient less bus contribute direction eat incident offence entire economic equal museum owner bed last for detail all consideration northern remind admit league extend joint gas powerful closely share cover fruit separate hell water all addition guest trend phase physical source such value scientific drive work marry defendant night lord relationship friend