
In the last few weeks several publications have made note of Barack Obama's and John McCain’s stances on gay rights. The Los Angeles Times ran a great piece about the candidates' differing but equally quiet positions, examining how both candidates made the announcement in a “muted” way. No press conferences, just announcements through the Internet; that's because neither one wants to take a prominent position on gay rights for fear of upsetting different contingents of supporters.
In California, which is likely to stay a blue state in November, there is little at risk for McCain. But the Times notes that being too eagerly antigay might repel swing voters elsewhere: “Like McCain's other recent gestures to align himself with the Republican Party's conservative wing, it risks turning off the independent voters whose support is crucial to his White House aspirations.”
At the same time, the piece notes that gay marriage may not be quite the lightning rod it used to be: “For independents, polls show, gay marriage and other social issues have dropped in priority as they have begun to fret over such pressing matters as surging gas prices, home foreclosures, and joblessness, along with the war in Iraq.” McCain is offering a “nuanced” plan, which opposes a federal ban but leaves it up to the states to decide, prompting Ellen Ann Andersen, a political scientist, gay activist, and author, to astutely note: “Federalism...makes most people's eyes want to roll to the back of their head."
Obama might have it a little harder than his opponent: He’s trying to sway evangelical followers who find McCain distasteful, while not trying to piss off his liberal base. The Democrat has also stopped short of being pro-gay marriage. In the past, he’s stated that civil unions will suffice.
It’s a move to the middle that the Seattle alternative weekly The Stranger lambasted in a scathing opinion piece (“How Do You Like Him Now?”) that puts the awful truth front and center: “As anyone who's paying attention knows, Barack Obama does not support gay marriage…. Yet there they were at Seattle's Gay Pride Parade on June 29, marching down Fourth Avenue under a blazingly hot sun -- scores of gay voters sweating as they held aloft iconic Obama placards that had been retooled in rainbow colors for Pride. Their implicit promise: We will vote for you no matter which way you move on our issues, because you're better than the alternative.”
The writer, Eli Sanders, ends the piece with a sad, but true, reality: “He believes the liberal base, after eight years of chafing under Bush and presented with his historic candidacy and a great shot at winning the White House, will, like those marchers at the Seattle Pride Parade, gleefully throw themselves under his bus. He's probably right.”
One of the big stories of the last week was the American Family Association’s boycott of McDonald's; the antigay group objects to the fast food restaurant’s support of “the gay agenda.”Several outlets -- from the very small (the political daily MichiganMessenger.com) to the very big (The Washington Post) -- ran the story about how the right-wing organization asked McDonald’s to remove its executive from the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, to which the fast-food chain has also donated $20,000. When Mickey D’s refused, AFA called for a boycott.
"Hatred has no place in our culture," McDonald's USA spokesman Bill Whitman told the Post. "That includes McDonald's, and we stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment."
The Post report also notes that the AFA is the same organization that ran a somewhat successful boycott of Ford, which recently ended after two years, “after the automaker largely stopped advertising its Volvo, Jaguar, and Land Rover vehicles in the gay media. The association also has boycotted retailer Target for substituting 'holiday' for 'Christmas' in its advertising and the Walt Disney Co. for its 'embrace of the homosexual lifestyle.' " (Ford reps have insisted that all niche advertising was stripped during the economic downturn, not just gay ads.)
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.
Comments that do not concern specific articles in The Advocate or on Advocate.com will not be posted or published. 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.