|
|
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
The Family Research Council (Action division) made sure to send out an email that said, "Joining a debate that caters to only 4 [percent] of the voting population--and highlights a behavior that a majority of Americans still consider "morally wrong"--carries obvious risks. So why the primetime pandering?" The FRC backed this up with polling numbers where anywhere from 28 to34 percent of the population says they'd be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports gay rights. The number of self-identified evangelical or born-again Christians totaled 23 percent in 2004. Meanwhile, those that support "full" marriage rights for gays are polling around 40 percent.
So it seems that progressive candidates are "pandering" to a larger minority of the population than the conservative candidates do.

I think that's only half right. There are definitely an additional subset of issues that many LGBTQ people of color face that white gays and lesbians don't. That said, those issues are often not the kind of thing where government has a strong role to play.
I agree that homophobia in many minority communities is a major problem. I disagree that there's any specific government policy that we can enact to force people to be tolerant.
It's the kind of thing that has to be fought in the private sphere, first and foremost. And this is where the 'mainstream' gay community especially falls down, in fighting for gay and lesbian people of color in that arena.
One major issue I had with the debate, though - only Barack Obama had to face the question about homophobia in the black community, as if he somehow has more standing to speak out against homophobia in the black community than the other candidates. I thought that was a patently racist way of handling the questioning, and the other candidates should have had to face the same question.
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: Link
Blog: Link