Pride & Opinions

I have this theory that most Democratic politicians are probably farther left on GLBT issues than they are public about in the press or in their votes. Part of this is almost certainly wishful thinking on my part, since the arguments against gay marriage and gay adoption and other such issues are just so bad that I can’t imagine that mostly ivy-league-educated politicians wouldn’t recognize their stupidity. But it’s also true that GLBT folks are one of the few minority groups (with the obese and illegal immigrants, I suppose) that it’s considered totally acceptable to throw under the bus during election season, which makes for some weirdly hypocritical stances that can’t possibly be true. Take John Edwards. He has Elizabeth Edwards admit that he’s uncomfortable with gay people and not for gay marriage, but he’s fine with gay civil unions and gay adoption and ending the ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy.

Basically, I think that saying you’re ‘for civil unions’ is a way for Democrats to reach out to the left without alienating people too much in the middle (read: heterosexual white males older than 35, basically). If you compare this rhetoric to the campaign rhetoric of four years ago, it’s gone clearly farther left (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell wasn’t really a campaign issue, and most Democrats wouldn’t say that they were for civil unions or gay adoption) which means to me that this is a matter of rhetoric catching up with the reality that was there all along. Or people evolve and change as they’re around difference. Either way.

This isn’t to say that I agree with that strategy. I understand the necessity of getting elected, but I’m still tremendously uncomfortable with the prospect of exclusion for that end goal.

If my theory is correct, however, you can be pretty sure Al Gore isn’t running, since he’s coming out for full marriage equality, among other things:

Link to video via Gay Rights Watch.

GLBT rights, gay marriage, Al Gore, Election 2008

GLBT rights, gay marriage, Al Gore, Election 2008