Four years ago, when the mayor of San Francisco made history by marrying gay folks down at City Hall, his fellow Democrat Dianne Feinstein voiced her displeasure in no uncertain terms. “Too much, too fast, too soon,” was the way she put it, and the ice water in her veins was almost audible. The senator’s 26 years in the national spotlight had been launched by a homophobic assassin, yet she still found a quarter of a century “too soon” for the full establishment of gay civil rights.
How much more time had she needed, for God’s sake? For years Feinstein had seen the full-blown horrors of AIDS and watched same-sex love in action -- sturdy, unwavering, unconditional love -- as LGBT families cared for the dying. She knew as well as anyone alive what we’d endured at the hands of a callous government and organized religious hatred. She had lived through Matthew Shepard’s crucifixion and scores of other antigay atrocities. When exactly, I wondered, would it be convenient for her to stand up for a constituency that had consistently returned her to office?
Maupin (left) and Turner wed in Vancouver in
February 2007. They plan to remarry in California.
The sad truth is that gay rights has always been the disposable card of liberal politics. The very fact of our existence is still “controversial” even to those who make a noise about being our friends. We’re still the fly in the ointment, the “divisive issue” that can lose an election. Just look at the weak-kneed response from the Clinton and Obama camps when the California supreme court made its landmark decision overthrowing the ban on same-sex marriage. Both candidates hid behind a campaign spokesperson and both reaffirmed their “separate but equal” policies of civil unions, thereby assuming a stance that would keep them in comfy solidarity with John McCain come November. The problem, of course, was that California court had just ruled that separate was NOT equal and never would be, so Clinton and Obama both ended up looking like -- there’s no other way to put this -- pussies. Faced with a major milestone in American civil rights, the Democratic contenders could offer neither congratulations nor condemnations. Like Dianne Feinstein four years earlier, they’d been completely upstaged by the decisive action of braver and wiser souls.
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.