Recount: A Magazine of Contemporary Politics

Gay Community Reacts to Nov. 2 Defeats

By Aaron Parsley | Nov 11, 2004 Print

John Kerry supporters woke up last Wednesday asking, “What went wrong in this election?” To answer that question, many looked to the same-sex marriage bans that passed in 11 states and exit polls that showed moral values as the most important factor for 22 percent of voters. Since then, many have wondered if the push for gay marriage may have backfired and cost the Democrats this crucial election by motivating Evangelical Christians to go to the polls and vote against same-sex marriage, and for President Bush. Did gays spoil this election for the Democrats? Are they the new Ralph Nader?

This past Monday night in New York City, members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT) community answered that question and reacted to the re-election of President Bush. A fiery town hall meeting at the LGBT Center on West 13th Street overflowed Kaplan hall with people standing in the back and sitting on the floor. They came to make sense out of Election Day, and to discuss the direction of their movement after four years of exhilarating gains and tremendous defeats.

Matt Foreman, national director of the Gay and Lesbian Task Force, opened the conversation with an enthusiastic analysis of the 11 states where anti-gay marriage amendments passed. “Putting a fundamental human right up on the ballot is wrong,” he said. “If we put on the ballot today the freedom of press, the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, not to mention choice…we would lose those freedoms in the majority of states.”

Of the 11 states, eight were red (Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah) and three were battleground (Ohio, Michigan, and Oregon) going into the election. In those states, 21 million votes were cast, with 14 million in favor of the ban and 7 million against it. “This was an uphill struggle for us,” Foreman said. “Only one of them, Oregon, had anything close to the resources it needed.” There, opponents tried to capitalize on their best chance at defeating an anti-gay amendment and raised $2.8 million. According to the Task Force website, it contributed more than $900,000 to the effort, including $799,000 in cash. The leading proponents of the amendment raised and spent about $2.3 million, according to the Task Force, but this amount does not represent the imbalance in funds because it does not include “the enormous resources poured into the fight by right wing churches.” Campaigns working to defeat the amendments in Ohio, Michigan and Utah each raised between $700,000 and $800,000. In Kentucky they raised $500,000. The campaigns in the other six states (Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota and Oklahoma) each raised less than $100,000.

Foreman addressed the notion that gay marriage as an issue was responsible for Kerry’s defeat. “This was a lie,” he said. “A total and complete homophobic lie.” In fact, Kerry did better than Gore in the three battleground states with amendments on the ballot. Furthermore, “it was the other 39 states that brought us down,” he said.

So who circulated the lie, he asked rhetorically? The words “Karl Rove” and “Right Wing” flashed on the screen behind him. “Duh,” he said. “They want to take credit for this.” The next screen showed the names of Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), and President Bill Clinton. According to Foreman, many progressive leaders told major Democratic donors that the gay marriage issue is to blame for the loss rather than admit that “their own message, their own campaign, and the way they spent money” was at fault. “It wasn’t just the Right,” Foremen said. “It was some of our own friends.”

Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, agreed. “They call us the scapegoats now but they certainly weren’t saying that about us when they were accepting millions and millions of dollars from our community for the election,” he said. “Someone needs to remind them that if we give it, we can take it back.”

Not everyone in attendance focused on amendments. For Ana Oliveira, executive director of the Gay Men’s Health Crisis, the most crucial issue was health care. HIV continues to be the most serious struggle for the community, she said. In a second Bush administration, Oliveira expects to see a reduction in health care due to less state involvement and a larger burden on individuals. She also expects reduced funding for research and a cap on entitlement programs like Medicaid, which she said is the largest fund-provider for people living with HIV/AIDS. These reductions will be combined with a rise in the cost of medication and censorship on the topics of prevention, sex and drugs.

Richard Kim, representing Queers for Economic Justice, described the passage of 11 marriage amendments in a broader political context. “Welcome to the new America,” he said. “What happened on Nov. 2, was not just the Christian Right mobilizing the so called ‘values voters’ with anti-gay initiatives, but a sweeping assault on immigrants, minorities, the working class, public services, women, you name it. It was an affirmation of empire, preemptive military strike, corporate cronyism, an expansive police state, and an economic plan that redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich.”

Nan Hunter, a law professor on the panel, urged people to “keep their eye on the prize,” and focused on what to do in the next four years. She suggested a “secular values discourse” with “pinkos” or people living in “pink states” like Ohio, and Florida, where Bush won narrowly. Contrary to several who spoke out, Hunter urged voters to work with the Democratic Party and to push the Democratic leaders as far to the left as possible. “I think we should take them over, not abandon them,” she said.

Kim had another idea. “We need to become more like the Christian Right,” he said. “But I don’t think that means we adopt their values. We need to get smart and adopt their strategies.” He called for a broad progressive vision to reach the goals of equal civil marriage rights, which includes building public virtues like economic equality, non-discrimination, secularism, state neutrality in housing, and immigration reform. 

Many suggested further cooperation with unions, minority groups, the Religious Left, and the anti-war movement. “If it is only LGBT people in New York State asking for our civil rights, we loose,” Van Capelle said. “We win when we get people who are not gay and lesbian to start caring and thinking and acting.”

Others were more confrontational. “National Boycott! Don’t buy shit for Christmas,” one woman yelled into the microphone. Not everyone favored boycotts because there are many GLBT people in red states, and others who support their cause. Based on the premise that this community is already too marginalized one woman offered a philosophical reason for avoiding boycotts: “The more we sacrifice, the more we sacrifice,” she said.

There were even more combative voices. “It’s time for civil disobedience,” said one man in a jean jacket and sweater. “It’s time we placed ourselves in front of the fire house.” There was talk of organizing a protest in Washington on Inauguration Day, and to disrupt important congressional hearings during the next administration, like Act Up and Code Pink did at the Republican National Convention this summer in Manhattan.

The emotional session produced a flood of ideas on how best to move forward, but what tied them together was that no matter how devastating the loss on Election Day there is still hope for the GLBT community. “Greatness comes from a community and a movement sometimes when you get knocked down,” Van Capelle said. “Any group of people like GLBT people … anybody who is thoroughly tested and as tough as we are can certainly be tough enough to weather another four years of this administration.”

Back to top