News
Despite Protests and No-Shows, DNC Nets $1 Million in Pink Dollarsby Kilian MelloyFriday Jun 26, 2009 A veritable "tsunami" of GLBT leaders and organizations boycotted a June 25 $1,000-per-plate Democratic National Committee fundraising dinner that took place in Washington, D.C.
The defections began in the wake of a pro-DOMA brief filed by the Justice Department, which upheld the constitutionality of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) by likening same-sex marriage to incestuous joinings and marriages between adults and minors.
The brief was reportedly authored, in part, by a Justice Department staffer who had been hired during the Bush administration; Pete Shumlin, the president of Vermont’s state Senate, characterized the brief as "more Bush than Bush."
Shumlin, a potential candidate for the Vermont governorship race next year, had been scheduled to participate in the fundraiser. He dropped out, along with a long list of other prominent leaders, including David Mixner, Clinton GLBT adviser Richard Socarides, gay blogger Andy Towle, Marty Rouse of the Human Rights Campaign, Rea Carey of The Task Force, Alan Van Capelle of the Empire State Pride Agenda, and Mary Bonauto of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).
Also boycotting the event were The Stonewall Democrats. Wrote AmericaBlog’s John Aravosis, "Let me explain this for straight Democrats, and straight media folks, out there. The Stonewall Democrats is THE gay Democratic organization. They are partisans to the core. They don’t go against the party.
"And no offense to our friends at [Stonewall Democrats], but they’re not exactly ’gay activists’ either," added Aravosis.
"For this organization to announce that it is pulling out of the... DNC gay fundraiser is not just a big deal for the fundraiser, it’s a very troubling message for the Democratic party leadership."
Aravosis sought to impress his point by rephrasing. "Let me put this another way. And again, no offense to Stonewall Dems. But these are folks that sometimes, some of us, think are more Dem than they are Gay. For them to stick it to the Democratic Party is rather huge."
Added the blogger, "It... should be a big red warning light to the leadership of our party that this rupture with the gay community is real, and getting worse by the day."
Aravosis quoted from a June 18 article at Politico in which the text of an email sent by the Stonewall Democrats’ board to Tom Petrillo, who coordinates the Democratic National Committee’s fundraising efforts targeted at the GLBT community.
Wrote the board members, "The members of the Board and our membership put our hopes, our dollars and our time into ensuring the election of Barack Obama because we believed that he supported us.
"To now have his Administration refer to our relationships in the same terms used by our long time enemies such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson hurts on so many levels."
The email continued, "To have our committed and loving relationships referred to as the moral equivalent of incest and pedophilia is not something that any of us ever expected from this Administration considering how hard we worked to be seen and respected.
"For that reason alone, advocating for attendance at a fundraiser to support the Administration and the DNC, while they have not condemned this hurtful language, is not something our membership will receive positively."
The Human Rights Campaign’s boycotting of the event was seen as crucial. When the HRC’s Marty Rouse announced that he was dropping out of the event, Aravosis wrote, "It’s over, folks."
In the event, the fundraiser was not quite over: a June 26 article at Advocate.com reported that despite the boycotts, and the picketing of the event by gay activists, the fundraiser still raked in $1 million in "pink" donations to the DNC.
The article noted that among those picketing the event was Aubrey Sarvis of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group dedicated to support and advocacy of gay U.S. troops.
Under a 1993, the so-called "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" (DADT) policy, gay troops may serve in uniform only as long as they do not disclose their true sexual orientation. However, critics of the law charge that the privacy of gay troops is routinely violated, and that female servicemembers are falsely accused of being lesbians and investigated if they decline sexual advances or report sexual harassment from male colleagues.
Thousands of qualified servicemembers, some with mission-critical skills upon which the war on terror depends, have been discharged under the provisions of DADT, according to SLDN.
One high profile case is that of Lt. Dan Choi, who came out as gay and now faces dismissal.
Wrote Choi in an email circulated by The Courage Campaign, "As an infantry officer, an Iraq combat veteran and a West Point graduate with a degree in Arabic, I refuse to lie to my commanders. I refuse to lie to my peers. I refuse to lie to my subordinates."
Choi’s letter noted, "I will face a panel of colonels who will decide whether or not to fire me--to discharge me for ’moral and professional dereliction’" under DADT.
Choi, who has become one in a succession of decorated and highly qualified military personnel to be dismissed recently under the policy, added, "On Tuesday (June 30), I will try to prove that it’s not immoral to tell the truth."
The Obama administration declined to intervene in Choi’s case, stating a preference for a repeal of the law as a whole rather than attempting to address the issue on a case-by-case basis.
That, too, has earned the president some criticism from GLBT leaders, and along with him, the Democratic Party.
Said Sarvis, "Tonight we’re here to send a strong message to the vice president and to the president that it’s time to end the silence on ’Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’
"His presidential leadership and commitment is needed up on the Hill," Sarvis added.
The article noted that Sarvis’ organization received support even from those running the fundraiser, some of whom wore buttons reading "265"--the number of troops discharged from the military under the policy just since Barack Obama assumed the presidency.
The article reported that vice president Joe Biden attended the event, and addressed the hard feelings that had led so many to refuse to be there.
Said Biden., "I am not unaware of the controversies swirling around this dinner," controversies that Biden recognized were "swirling around the speed--or lack thereof--that we’re moving on issues that are of great importance to you and, quite frankly, to me and to the President and to millions of Americans."
Added the vice president, "I want thank you for being a critical--critical--voice for keeping the nation focused on the unfinished business of true equality for all of our people.
"And I know, and this administration knows, that we have so much more to do. I promise you, I promise you, with your help we’ll get there in this administration."
Biden went on to reference a list of outstanding social justice issues that GLBT leaders want to see the Obama administration address, including DADT, hate crimes legislation, and federal employment non-discrimination legislation.
Biden emphasized that the Obama administration had not forgotten its vow to see DOMA repealed, telling the attendees, "We will repeal the Defense of Marriage Act with your help!"
DOMA and DADT are of especial interest to GLBT leaders because they, more than other legal inequities, mark out gay and lesbian citizens for exclusion and legal discrimination.
DOMA, especially, affects gay and lesbian families, because it bans any federal recognition of gay and lesbian families at the federal level and stipulates that states may ignore the legitimacy of marriages conferred on same-sex couples in other jurisdictions.
Under a previous interpretation of DOMA, the Census Bureau had plans to exclude gay and lesbian families from the 2010 census. Recently, however, the Obama administration announced that those families would be counted.
The brief in question was provided by the Justice Department to a federal court hearing a case against DOMA on constitutional grounds.
Though government spokespersons defended the brief as following tradition by seeking to support existing law, the arguments used in the brief--essentially saying that DOMA is constitutionally valid because states might have a vested interest in denying gay and lesbian families access to marriage equality--was seen by many GLBT leaders as homophobic.
Kilian Melloy reviews media, conducts interviews, and writes commentary for EDGEBoston, where he also serves as Assistant Arts Editor.
|
|
|
Email
Print
Share