Why Gay People Have Hillary's Back
If you wonder why gay people have Hillary's back, check out my post and this video from 2013
Hillary steps into the ring swinging....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2529426
= new reply since forum marked as read
When thinking of our strongest (political) allies, my thoughts gravitate to the late senator Edward Kennedy, or the Californian hero-mayor Gavin Newsom. Both Democrats to be very proud of.
But on a more serious note: even IF the Clintons have always had our backs (which is debatable, since Bill Clinton himself has apologised for some bills that he signed) that still doesn't translate into "the LGBT community owes their votes to a Clinton in 2016".
This is not an attack on Clinton, just a repeat of a warning made even by Clinton's strongest supporters: don't become complacent, don't count chickens before they are hatched.
And I know that there are still alert-stalkers active, and I know that some posters are still very sensitive after the primaries. But those are over, and I only post constructive criticism on DU. Read it as such, all ye whose eyes glance over these words.
During the primaries, senator Sanders' supporters were unpleasantly surprised that people of colour didn't vote in droves for the man who had marched with Dr. Martin Luther King. But as DU's people of colour were quick to point out: just because he had done the right thing, doesn't mean that PoC of any age "owe" their vote to Sanders.
Just because the Clintons have done things right by the LGBT community in the past (no doubt the stuff you you are tired of mentioning when "defending them to a younger generation"
doesn't mean that LGBT people of any age "owe" their vote to the Clintons, or are destined to have her back, or whatever.
And here is why: intersectionality.
LGBT people aren't just gay, they are also employees, unemployed, young, old, people of colour, Latinos, concerned about the environment, concerned about women's health rights, suffering from mental health issues, or knowing someone who does, concerned about education (or working in education, or parents of a child going to school) and so on.
Just saying: "hey, Clinton had your back a generation ago" isn't nearly going to be as effective as offering policies that address the issues that concern all the above parts of someone's identity. The GOP may be foolish enough to reduce an antire human being to his or her sexual orientation, but we should be wiser. If we don't address the rampant police abuse of people of colour (police reform) a lesbian woman of colour may still feel that we don't address her issues. Ignoring the anger of the younger generation (concerns about employment, prospects, housing, trade deals, income disparity, the environment and so on) is likely to turn off a young LGBT person, whatever the Clintons did ten years ago.
It's safe to say that the LGBT community is collectively miffed about gun violence. Offering lots of down-ticket candidates who propose stricter gun laws may sound like a good idea, but we should also remember that right after Orlando, gun sales to LGBT people spiked. What that tells us is that a lot of LGBT people feel unsafe, and feel that they can't RELY on either party to guarantee their safety and their rights. From that feeling, few will feel that they owe a vote to either party.
Like it or not, the LGBT votes have to be earned - over a great many issues. The Democratic candidates (up and down the ticket) will have to give them a reason to vote Democratic.
(And no: especially downticket, the Trump card won't be enough.)
