NY – How Hillary Helps Queers

Ethan Geto, center, with NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer (left) and Lt. Gov. David Paterson

Ethan Geto, a gay NY power broker and LGBT advisor to the Clinton campaign, made an interesting case for why a Hillary presidency would be a bigger step forward for the queer community than an Obama presidency.

"I think that the major reason gay men are looked down upon in American society is because people perceive their gayness to mean they have given up their male privilege — they are now like women. It’s considered a tremendous relinquishing of power, of status," said Geto. "I’ve always felt that the gay movement never would have really gotten off the ground without the feminist movement. The black civil rights movement was a great model and symbol in many ways, but I’ve always felt, the more research I’ve done over the years, that feminism is really the platform for gay liberation, gay rights, and so forth. I think that when and if a woman is elected president, it would be an enormous blow to sexism in general. It would have an enormous ripple effect psychologically and culturally in terms of the status of gay people...

"As far as lesbians go, a butch lesbian is seen like a man. Amongst other things — psychological and cultural factors — men don’t like to see strong women. They’re afraid of strong women. I think if you had a successful, strong woman, it just has to begin to change things. It may be a little more subtle, it may be a little more psychological and not totally a conscious thing. But in terms of cultural symbolism and changing cultural values, electing a woman would not only be a great lift for feminist goals, but very much gay rights and gay liberation."

(Programming Note: That's the last word from the East Coast. Signing off in NY.)

Comments

[Matt]

I agree that having a woman in the oval would be a big step for all of us.

This shift in mindset coupled with Sen. Clinton's long time comittment to our cause would likely produce major gains in our movement towards more equality in this country.

Clinton 08!!!!

[Will]

I never thought of that, but it does make sense. And there's another supporting fact. Lord knows, I love black folk, but there is an evangelical, anti gay pressense in the black community. And there's no knowing how much influence they might have on Obama. http://a-civilife.blogspot.com

[Deanne]

Clinton's ties to the feminist movement have been damaged by her failure to protect the women in the White House against her predatory husband, then helping him to destroy and discredit them in order to cover up the scandals; not for his sake, but for the sake of her political future.

Don't forget DOMA. Take Hillary at her word. She was instrumental in passing DOMA; her rationale was that in passing DOMA, the Clinton Administration forestalled a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. Her solution was to punt back to the states.

This is always the arguments at any level of government when those in power don't want to deal with the question at hand. Kick it up the line to the State level; kick it up to the Fed level, or pass it back to the States. No one wants the hot potatoe, and Hillary definitely does NOT want to risk her blue-collar and elderly white base in order to outwardly support LGBT issues.

See Lane Hudson @ Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lane-hudson/hillarys-doma-dilemma_b_59614.html

(P3)

[Pat Gandy]

Take Spitzer off the site.PLEEESE!

[Joy Silver]

Thank you for this article. While I am no fan of DOMA, and neither Democratic candidate meets my requirement for civil rights fo LGBT people, including the option to marry,the understanding that homophobia is deeply rooted in misogyny and how Hillary could advance us is spot on.

[Amiko-Gabriel]

This queer identified person does not support Hillary. And Obama taking out an ad doesn't necessarily meaning he is trying to cut queer identified folks' ties with Hillary. It just means he is trying to make some of his own. While I may not think that Obama is a perfect candidate, I certainly don't think Hillary is either and I know I wouldn't vote for her. This means that out of all of the other imperfect candidates, I would be voting for Obama.

[James Schmidt]

Chameleons Swimming in Chappaquiddick Or, more apt: Why I don’t like the Clintons.

Halloween years back: a man wore a Bill Clinton mask and a tacky suit. In his hand, he carried has a big wet cigar and swaggered with two female dolls dragging behind him (yes, the blow-job faced dolls - those). I thought it was funny and continued down the Castro, viewing the parade of Marie Antoinette drag queens and nipple-pierced party-puff go boys. I laughed at the Bill Clinton characateur, but I can’t shake the tawdry image, even though I want to. I want to.

Like trying to ‘Pin the tail on the chameleons’, people can’t seem to “pin down” the Clintons, although many have tried and are still trying. In Europe there is a German word for people who ‘tell it like it is’: these people have good “Fingerspitzengefuhl” (try to say it without spitting, please). It literally translates as “fingertip feeling” – but it goes beyond to mean someone has a very good grasp or good sense, akin to great instinct. Now, Bill Clinton personalized that word in spades. He had amazing political instinct – there is no denying his political charm and pure power, but what about the other Bill, the one we try to forget and sweep under that shag carpet of the past? What about him?

Don’t get me wrong. I used to like Bill Clinton. I did. And I can’t really compare him to the current president, George W. Bush, as that’s not fair. In fact, I don’t think it is fair to compare the current president to anyone; that would always be cruel to the president, no matter who I compared him with.

Anyway, history and time: think back, review the life and lives: a masterful journey the Clintons had, no? Today they are still on that master journey. But back in the day - the sprightly star couple, pictured in wooly sweaters, looking all chip-chap, like East Coast book worms addled with un-inhaled whiffs of Lady Jane. What’s not to love about the mid ‘70s tale of two who went to Yale, got married, then the lady loaded up on the dough with all those billable lawyer fees – a lot of dough for Little Rock – who knew? They dragged themselves through scandal after scandal, all with the ease of legalese.

I can almost see Bill, pizza in hand, staggering from one campaign room to another, powering through his early day brilliance by feasting deep in the female trough. I don’t care; never have been a big moralist, but his wife should/does/maybe? Maybe she didn’t care as she was, in effect, the de-facto Vice President (all nods to Gore aside). She had sway, power, and like a female Golum, given the ring to play with from time to time, it must have been a rush.

Yes, the “right wing”, born-again bible-beating religious-rallying Limbaugh listening fools painted them as an evil pair in every way they could. But you know, they had a lot of material to work with. Of course, no one is asking for squeaky clean, but the Clintons always had some taint about them. There was always…something.

Now we are fed Hillary and we don’t know if it is going to be something we want to digest. Why? A little tale: I was in New York City years ago (2000), when Hillary was running for the Senate seat for New York State. She showed up at the LGBT Pride parade in Manhattan. She was surrounded by many people; I got close enough to see her face full of makeup and her attentive eyes looking smugly around. To me she looked like someone who knew why she was there; like someone surveying the votes that would be cast just by her showing up. I thought it was great that she was there, showing “support” for the gay community, and such a nice way of showing ‘noblesse oblige’. Then it hit me, hard.

I remember with absolute disgust when Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 – this was his political saving measure to appease the masses as well as a huge majority of conservative America afraid of his “liberal ways”. He shafted a minority to save his hide/pride. He hurt a group of people for a very long time by doing so. No, the door is not permanently shut, but it is shut for a long while. And Hillary was there. She was there in that decision-making process.

Now that the Clintons are on their “last stand”, still trying to use their “Comeback Kid” motto on us; does it really work on anyone outside the die-hard clique of Clinton loyalists? The journey for them is on its last legs, and the proverbial campaign car is swirling down the water cone - its own version of Chappaquiddick (look it up, folks, if you don’t know it). The chameleons are doing everything they can to float the car, but in their fast changing words and ways, they just seem to disguise themselves uglier and uglier, just like a Clinton-masked man I saw years ago on Halloween.

Chelsea Clinton was on TV tonight rebutting a question about Monica Lewinsky as inappropriate and that “this is none of your business.” I disagree, oh daughter-loyalist. It is a measure of a man’s moral character – which means a whole lot more than sleazy cigar sex in the oval office, you know? To say that the brainy chameleon Hillary did not know about his dalliances mocks her intelligence.

I know why I don’t like them. Not one reason, but many. My Fingerspitzengefuhl about the Clintons may not be 100% all the time. But for me, there is always that something…that something my ‘finger feeling’ always tells me: run away, the car is sinking, and these people, desperate chameleons, are clawing at you, trying to drag you down so they can escape. They are not going to help you out. No way.

[Michael]

Am I the only person here who finds Ethan Geto's position completely offensive? This plays into all sorts of stereotypes: gay men are not "real men", butch lesbians want to be men, straight men don't like strong women.

Electing a female president will advance gay rights because she is female?

Obama's campaign is doing more to change cultural values.

Take a look at the GLBT info on Obama's website. Then take a look at the GLBT info on Clinton's website -- oh wait there isn't one on Clinton's website. That says it all.

[Phil_in_ny]

Hillary is way more progressive on GLBT issues than Obama, and its self evedent why.

Sure, Obama throws us a bone when he mentions us here and there in those polished speeches of his, but where has he been when asked to give interviews to the gay press?

Hillary has a small track record with our community, but at least it's something.

My concern is that, if Obama does go on to win the white house in Novemeber, any gay isses he brought up, which aren't much, will be off the table.

[gregory]

DOMA & DADT were passed light years ago from a political point of view. The political climate today is NOTHING like it was in 1992. In fact DADT was an improvement of the previous law, in spite of the perverse enforcement.
For those who might have forgotten, no other president had addressed himself openly to us before Clinton. That in itself was a MAJOR step!
As for all of Obama's "I talk more about GLBT issues" talk, it remains coded and vague while speaking to the general population and isn't addressed directly to those who identify as such.
I'll stick with Clinton.

[Will/USAF]

"Posted by: Phil_in_ny | April 06, 2008 at 08:25 AM
DOMA & DADT were passed light years ago from a political point of view"

Why on earth would you make excuses for DADO or DOMA?
Lives have been ruined. Our families have been disrespected and destroyed.
You have been legally made a second class citizen in your own country. It is inexcusable.

"Light years ago"?? Right now a serviceman, a national hero is under investigation based solely on his sexuality. Right now an elderly same sex couple is living in poverty because their federal retirement benefits are based on the "single/unmarried" rate. A "non-biological" mother is being told she will never see her children again.

Thank you for supporting the people who did this to them Phil.

Laws have long ranging consequences. They can help or hurt for generations. We cannot afford to support ANY candidate who doesn't understand that.

If the Clinton's are so shortsighted and self-serving that they would enact legalized discrimination policies /laws that target you once, just to defuse some immediate political crisis of their own......why wouldn't they do it again? More importantly, why would you voluntarily give them the chance...again?

Sen. Obama is 100% correct. We need to take charge in demanding our rights. He's given us no reason to doubt his word that he will support us.

Let's get to it:
Step #1 Stop voting for people who have already lied to and/or betrayed us.
Step #2 Give yourself a Reality Check...in the real world, sometimes the Str8 Black guy IS good and the SUPER rich white "diva" is BAD.
Step #3 Fact-Check before you vote.... ignorance is dangerous

[Rick]

Call me shallow, but ever since the whole Elliott Spitzer debacle... I think he's kinda hot! Anyone else?

[Tammara]

Here's Hillary Clinton's LGBT info from her website:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/lgbt/

[Tammara]

DADT is exactly why a gay person should support Hillary!!!

Bill Clinton was in '92 the political neophyte that Obama is now - promise 'change' without knowing the political realities. The fact of the matter is that our government is more than the president. Sure you can 'blame' Hillary and continue to look for the get-it-all-right-now savior that doesn't exist. OR we as a community can think STRATEGICALLY and MATURELY and reap the political capacity that those past errors have taught our allies. The Clintons learned the lessons of promising more than can be delivered; they learned that progress is always made in small steps. Hillary now knows how to get it done.

WE must be willing to commit to moving forward, step-by-step, not standing and waiting for the panacea that doesn't exist to come by and pick us up. We have made an investment in Hillary - she's taken hits for us too - let us get her to the White House so we can reap the benefits of experience.

[Amiko-Gabriel]

When I googled my name, this came up, only it attributed the post below mine to me, instead of my actual post, which is above my name. I felt it was important to clarify this.