Ruby-Sachs: Gay Candidates on the Illinois Election Primary Day
Chicago is a city I love. It’s enough like Toronto to feel like home, and enough like New York to get lost in. And so, when the city gives Illinois a record number of gay candidates for today’s primary, I get excited. If you live in Illinois, you should be excited too. Then you should think about whether being gay is enough of a platform to earn your vote.
This is the great debate.
If a candidate is otherwise decent, but is running against an openly gay candidate, should we hope for their loss and visibility’s win? Take, for example, the high profile campaign of Jim Madigan. He’s running against a generally liberal Senator who has a pretty good track record. However, Madigan is also liberal and is openly gay, worked for Lambda Legal and has a long track record of fighting for equality. Does Madigan inch ahead, just because we like his sexual politics?
I want to hear from you on this one.
I know that I think if you can take visibility on a Democratic ticket, you ought to go for it. State politics are, these days, THE equality battleground and we need all the help we can get in State legislatures. That, and I happen to think Madigan is a good guy who is incredibly smart and politically savvy. He might have the ability to push through civil unions in the next five years.
I also know that Deb Mell, incumbent house representative who is an out lesbian, is running a race against a out gay man. After years of LGBT activism and lots of work behind the scenes on the first failed civil unions bill in Illinois, I’m excited and hopeful for a Mell win in that race.
So please weigh in. How important is visibility? And check back later for an election update.
No . . . No . . . . NO . . . .NO NO NO!!!!! Not in the least. Am I excited when a gay or lesbian politician wins an election? Yes. Yes I am. I am not excited because a gay or lesbian is in office. Not in the least. I am excited because I know 90% of the population didn’t vote for them because of who they sleep with. I’m excited because they won on the merits of their politics, and their policy, and their ability to motivate voters. The same way that Black, Latino, Asian, etc. etc. etc. workers and politicians should get jobs because they are qualified, we should support the best candidate. When that candidate is a member of our community, our culture it is a day for celebration, but only because it shows we are one day closer to not having to even ask this question any more.
And when a gay man wins the oval office based on the merits and his desire to have a stronger and wealthier country. Ohhh happy day!
Emma I agree with Victor somewhat. The fact that they run, are visible and get votes based on their ability is what we should celebrate. We should push gay candidacy. But to win my vote they need to hold more of my values than just equality.
And for me it is not about who has the best liberal bona fides as you lay it out. The best candidate would be a moderate who is for equality and for small government.
Some say “fiscal conservative/social liberal” but that is wrong for me. Social liberals do not as a rule get my support because of the way they want to go about helping others…with my money.
I would like a fiscal conservative/social moderate and if he/she is gay, all the better.
Fiscal conservative, not the current brand of republicans, who will work to curtail spending and unfair taxation (the death tax, a graduated income tax, too high capital gains tax, relying on payroll taxes vs. use taxes too much are all unfair forms of taxation in my book). I would really put first in my priorities a candidate who will fight the earmark and unneccessary spendning habits of both chambers of congress.
social moderate meaning a nod to the true right about the government staying out of our personal lives regarding who we choose to marry and when/if we choose to reproduce plus reasonable pot and alcohol laws (i.e. why can’t we buy wine at a movie, why do my favorite restaurants lose their license in the winter and why can’t my state government sell per plant licenses for marijuana production at home?) and a nod to the right regarding a fair and sensible social safety net that encourages education, self help, personal responsibility and handouts only as a last resort in an environment where we truly work to improve people’s abilities to care for themselves.
I have seen no such candidate unfortunately, and find the need for a moderate balance more important than a candidate being gay.
I used to vote for the best candidate that could get our MUNICIPALITY/CITY/STATE/COUNTRY into better shape, this had always been my stance. But, it seems that all politicians lie to all of us to get into office. I have worked diligently on many campaigns and been a strong supporter of the candidates that I campaigned for. I have also seen those same candidates lie after we got them elected. I think we have to vote for progress, however that comes about. I will say that I am more inclined to vote for someone that is gay as I know that all of them are going to lie, so I will try to find an ally that lies.
It’s an imposing dilemma. As badly as we need leaders and support, I would vote for anybody who would be willing to lead LGBT legislation and/or strongly support it. Sometimes, that could even mean a heterosexual candidate instead of someone from the LGBT community.
For years I voted my ideology which was moderatly conservative. Untill the mid 90’s gay rights didn’t seem(to me) to break along party lines. DOMA ,the proposed constituional admendmet proposed by Bush and the fight for the Mathew shepard act changed my mind. These issues have a greater impact on my day to day life than any but the most radical fiscal or social policies. While greater exposure to liberal ideas has made me somewhat more liberal myself, I still vote for the most LGBT friendly person first and take other views second. While I do now have a problem with so called “log cabin republicans”, I have greater issues with the left that assumes because I’m gay I suport all liberal policies.
DaveW, you just describe my dream candidate! Sadly, as much sense as the fiscally conservative/socially moderate political viewpoint makes to me, I think that that platform would be difficult to garner much support on either side of the aisle. It may be better suited for Independants, but it seems that kind of candidate would be hard-pressed to make it big in politics.
But, some day….just maybe we’ll see a true fiscal conservative/social moderate! I’ll be waiting.
No wonder we are in such bad shape when gay people play down the importance of equality. Those people are just like those in most of the red states that vote against their best interests. They must really like being second-class citizens. What passes for conservatives these days are religious fanatics who want all sorts of “faith based” social programs, no taxes, and every weapons system anybody can think up. With the floodgates open to corporate spending, the government is already bought and paid for by special interests. Don’t expect any change any time soon. The country will soon collapse of its own weight, and will be owned by China, in any case.
Emma, While Deb Mell is your obvious fave, you could have at least had the decency and courtesy of mentioning the openly gay man also in the race against her, Joe Liaconia, by name.
As if fiscal conservatism weren’t a proven failure enough, even gays want it?
Word on the street is that only “we” could rock the white house like never before. “Pump up da jam”
…and bring down the deficit!