| Last week there was a big uproar in the LGBT community over Manhunt co-founder Jonathan Crutchley's $2,300 donation to John McCain. For those who don't know, Manhunt is the biggest gay male cruising site, with over 1 million active members and close to 1.5 million worldwide. It's very popular in among gay males, and a huge moneymaker from all the browsing traffic.
Crutchley screwed up, because since his donation history was published by Andy Towle, Manhunt subscribers started canceling their memberships, his founding co-partner Larry Basile publicly trashed his decision, and Crutchley resigned from the board, wrote an apology letter to his employees, and donated the same amount to Obama. Seems like the right thing to do, both for his business, as well as for the community.
Except yesterday, James Kirchick, an assistant editor of the New Republic (big surprise there), wrote an LATimes editorial accusing the gay community of intolerance, comparing John McCain with "Massachusetts Republican" types, and scolding the gay community for not donating more to him. It really is a piece of work.
More on the flip. |
In it, he wrote:
The hue and cry over Crutchley's politics is all too familiar. Why can't gay activists countenance the idea of a "Massachusetts Republican"? Liberal intolerance. In the minds of too many on the left, gay people (like women and ethnic minorities) have to be liberal and support Democratic candidates. To do otherwise -- that is, to have opinions on issues (even issues utterly unrelated to gay rights) that don't follow the left-wing line -- is to be a traitor to the gay "community."
For too long, many gay-rights activists have acted as if throwing temper tantrums will magically bring about their political agenda. But labeling everyone with whom they don't agree a "bigot" does not help the worthy cause of gay equality.
Okay, I don't get this at all. First, Kirchick tries to make it sound as if some NYTimes gay liberal mafia set took action, tsk-tsking over what Crutchley did, and that's what got Crutchley to change his mind. Actually, Manhunt users themselves help start this, and looking around at my friends who use Manhunt, a whole lot of them aren't into politics at all. This was the gay male community standing up and saying that John McCain, one of the most anti-LGBT candidates for President we've ever had, should not be supported by anyone who gives a crap about their equal rights.
Second, gay men can countenance Massachusetts Republicans. But there's a difference between Massachusetts Republican Jonathan Crutchleys, who is a self-described one, and John McCain Republicans. Kirchick is confusing the donor with the candidate. But while we're at it, Massachusetts Republican Jonathan Crutchleys still aren't all the best advocates for LGBT rights, considering his reasoning for donating to Obama, as paraphrased by his co-founder:
"He said, 'If John is too good for my money, I'll give it to (presumptive Democratic nominee) Barack (Obama),' " Basile said yesterday.
Yes, you've really learned your lesson. Or his reasoning for his initial support of McCain:
""I believe McCain will be a better commander-in-chief than Obama, who also opposes gay marriage," Crutchley wrote, defending himself in the Huffington Post. "If we have an experienced, seasoned person defending the country in this dangerous age, we will be able to argue about the gay agenda later."
Those Massachusetts Republicans sure are staunch advocates.
My favorite part from Kirchick, though, is this:
The truth of the matter is that civil rights for gays can't come about without the help of Republicans. And this means that gay people -- and straight supporters of gay equality -- need to stand with, not silence, people like Crutchley who are working to change the GOP from within.
Gays need only look to California, where a state Supreme Court loaded with Republican appointees legalized gay marriage and the Republican governor is one of the most powerful pro-gay publicly elected officials in the country, to understand the importance of making gay rights a bipartisan cause.
You can take two views on this: first, my view, which is that the LGBT community, for legislative reasons, needs to align with the Democratic Party to achieve our goals; or second, and definitely more appropriate here, that John McCain is a bigot. The latter is what caused this uproar. The first reason goes more to candidates for legislative office, which is another debate entirely. But we're talking about President. I can't see Kirchick wagging his finger at us if pro-choice advocates decided, say, Mike Huckabee wasn't exactly their cup of tea, so why exactly would electing John McCain, who is no Massachusetts Republican, advance the interests of the community? "Activists" aren't throwing temper tantrums here, they're actually being, you know, strategic. McCain will veto any kind of progressive LGBT legislation, and that's that.
And Kirchick actually believes electing John McCain will "change the GOP from within"? In which way, exactly? President McCain isn't going to the House GOP Caucus and talking to them about the need for ending Don't Ask Don't Tell. He's not publicly advocating ENDA, ending abstience until marriage policies, supporting hate crimes laws, marriage equality, or same-sex adoption (which is my favorite of his LGBT positions, for both policy and political pandering reasons). He's not using his influence as President to raise money for LGBT civil rights organizations. I'm not even holding my breath for any calls for tolerance in Minneapolis, the most basic thing he could do.
With respect to California, Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed marriage equality twice, and has hedged on other issues. I wouldn't exactly call him a trailblazing pioneer for marriage equality. And his 2006 opponent, Phil Angelides, was far better on a full range of LGBT issues, in addition to coming out for marriage equality. And in terms of nominees, as Wayne Besen pointed out to me, McCain has already told us he would not have appointed Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer, four of the justices who voted the right way in Lawrence v. Texas (the decision that overturned a law banning gay sexual relations).
It doesn't surprise me that Kirchick doesn't get interest group political strategy in general, and is following the usual New Republic wanker line about comity and bipartisanship to achieve anything substantive. But the LGBT community has no reason to believe McCain will move the ball forward in any substantive way whatsoever. |
