Exclusive: Gays Rebuff Hillary
In the February 10 email, marked "confidential," Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the influential, well-funded Empire State Pride Agenda, says he's refusing to "lend my name and sell tickets" to a gay-oriented fundraiser for Hillary's reelection.
"Let me begin by stating that I believe Hillary Clinton has served the people of New York well in the United States Senate and that she deserves re-election," he writes. "My vote for Senator Clinton will come despite her regrettable statements on the issue of marriage for same-sex couples and her current support for DOMA."
She is, he writes "a complete disappointment and does not deserve an LGBT fundraiser."
Reached this afternoon, Van Capelle confirmed that he'd sent the email but declined to elaborate on it.
These are the shifting sands of the same-sex marriage issue. A few years ago, Howard Dean was a hero for signing separate-but-equal civil union legislation. A generation of Democrats is basically committed to protecting "traditional marriage," and trying to make up the difference in the politically active, donor-rich gay community with support for a wide range of domestic-partner benefits, along with legislation on everything from hate crimes to AIDS research. And increasingly, that's not enough for gay Democrats.
In that context, Van Capelle's letter marks something of a turning point for mainstream gay rights groups: Marriage is now make-or-break.
"This year Eliot Spitzer, David Patterson, Alan Hevesi, Andrew Cuomo, Mark Green, Sean Maloney and others are running for statewide office and are in favor of marriage equality for gays and lesbians. When our struggle is over, they will be recorded as being on the right side of history and as of now Hillary Clinton will not be with them," Van Capelle writes, adding:
"Supporting an LGBT fundraiser for Hillary Clinton will actually hurt our community. It will send a message to other elected officials that you can be working against us during this critical time and not suffer a negative pushback from the gay community. We have become a community that throws money at politicians and we demand nothing in return. And that's what we get -- nothing. It's the wrong message to send."
Great! Good for Alan Van Capelle. Hillary Clinton's so called gay supporters are selling us down the river.
Typical of the dems: toe every extreme line of every special interest, or we'll do our best to screw you. And then we sit around and try to figure out why we have less people in our party than the republicans. Geez, go figure.
Dear Mr. Anon:
Van Capelle said that he was voting for Hillary nd that she deserved to be reelected, but that he didn't think Gays should donate money because she is awol on what is considered in the Gay community the most important issue we are currently facing.
Maybe it's just me, but I do not consider my quest for equality to be such an extreme issue, nor do I consider myself a special interest. I'm just a working stiff trying to fully participate in the American dream. You seem to be the one with an agenda, Mr. Anon.
How could he still vote for her when he has said himself she is a disappointment to the LGBT community? Make a real stand!
areyouserious:
How could he vote for her (when he makes it a point to publicly declare she's not worthy of financial support)?
Because, when you contribute money, you have limited resources, and ideally, try to put those resources where you'll get the most bang for the buck. Giving to a sure winner, who still won't embrace your entire agenda, does not meet the cost-benefit test (although contributing to a more marginal candiate with a similar stance, in the hopes of beating a real enemy, might).
On the other hand, voting is a finite resource, you get one vote for each office, and cannot usually harness it to maximize your band; you basically get to either choose one from "Column A", or forsake any choice at all; use it or lose it. In that cost-benefit analysis, voting for the lesser of the evils, or a less than outstanding good, makes absolute sense.
Politics, after all, is the art of the possible.
Hillary only shows up when she wants something from the LGBT community. She'll get our votes as Spencer is terrible, but why should we back her with gusto or cash?
I will not vote for someone who does not value my right to marry. She lost my vote forever.
kudos to van capelle for taking a stand. i don't know if email was the right medium (unless he wanted it to be distributed to the world), but i think he's got a good point, as does gatemouth.
People: Clinton ain't your only choice. Her chief Democratic opponent, Jonathan Tasini, is 100
percent supportive of gay rights. In fact, during his years in the labor movement, he was a champion of workplace rights forLGBT community. Vote for him!
Why don't we all just shoot ourselves in the head? We need to show consistency and realism as we fight for equality. Hillary is likely the one who will take on the nut cases who are ruining this country and would move us all into camps (did I mention that I'm gay?) Hillary must follow a moderate path in order to pull votes from a majority of Americans. We can negotiate later; she will listen and she will eventually do the right thing. In the meantime, we all need to pull together to end the rise of theocratic fascism in this country.
It's amazing how so many Dems just don't bother to do any legwork before writing those kinds of e-mails... I'm voting for her even though I'm so upset I can't even be associated with her?! What the hell kind of logic is that?
People, there are alternatives. Don't like Marty Markowitz... vote for Gloria Mattera? Leaving the ballot blank sends the message that you couldn't decide.
As for Tasini, why isn't the Politicker doing a story on him? He's great and way worthy.
Can one of you tell me where gays got this "right" to marry?
Also, why is the question of gay-marriage NOT a legislative issue but a cvonstitutional one ?
Unlike Dean (who as party chair is responsible for marshalling and deploying lawyers guns and money, rather than for formulating policy), Hilary is an elected offical and a present and future candidate for office, so I have no problem with her having to take the heat.
Since giving money to Hilary serves only a symbolic purpose (she doesn't need it, and even if she was for gay marriage, the money could be better spent elsewhere), making an issue of this sends out a useful message for Pride Agenda, with little real consequence.
However, it should not be forgotten that the real goal here is to give gay families the same protections and benefits enjoyed by others. The multiple negative impacts of not being able to marry hurt thousands everyday, sometimes seriously. The most important thing to do is open up these benefits and protections to all families. If calling it "Civil Union" will help to pass such legislation, then it would be a good idea to get the substance now and defer the symbolism (albeit important) to another day.
There are indications that a civil union bill could pass in New York (last year, the Brooklyn Republican, no bastion of liberalism, failed to pass a platform plank on gay marriage because there was no consensus; however, a majority favored either marriage or civil union). But, to get this 9/10's of a loaf will involve supporting less than perfect candidates against even less perfect ones. Gay money can make a real difference, but only if it's contributors are willing to forsake symbols for substance.
Still smarting over Mattera, huh, Brian?
Tasini's a good guy, and deserves to be heard by the voters. Thing is, just like what's his name from Yonkers, he's going up against the political equivalent of Fort Knox.
Kudos to Van Capelle. In full disclosure, I once wrote nasty things accusing him of essentially being a Democratic Party shill, noting that he had attended the Dem. Natl. Convention in Boston as some kind of Credentials Committee member or alternate or whatnot, which I still think showed poor judgment; but his now-public stance on Hillary is entirely appropriate, and reassuring for those of us in the GLBT community who want institutions like ESPA and the Human Rights Campaign to be smart, which occasionally means being bipartisan, and which also occasionally means callin on the carpet Democratic Party icons like Hillary when they deserve it. Well done, Alan!
Bravo Van Capelle!
I thought he was a complete hack when he came to the Pride Agenda. But now with the Pride Agenda's endorsement of Ferrer over Bloomberg and this denouncement of the mediocre on LGBT civil rights Hillary I actually like the dude!
Call it the van Capelle Doctrine. He announced it at the Pride Agenda Fall Dinner. It goes like this: the LGBT community will withhold our financial support from candidates who don't support our full civil equality, which includes equal civil marriage rights. It takes guts, and it's absolutely the right thing to do. Also, it's ahead of the curve...for now. A few years down the road it'll be hard to imagine that it was controversial in 2006 to ask politicians who want your money whether they support your fundamental civil rights. Puts Hillary in a tough spot. She needs LGBT voters to get the 65% plus re-elect number she needs to springboard into the 2008 primaries, but she doesn't want to budge on our issues -- even on saying DOMA was a mistake (how hard is that for a NY Senator really?) Those who think it hurts the party to push Dems on this stuff should explain why Eliot Spitzer can poll at 70% in Upstate NY and still support equal civil marriage rights (and transgender rights). It's called leadership -- Democrats should try it if they want to win.
Gatemouth - Column B man, Column B.
:)
Hey-- why not start a single issue line on the ballot? The Marriage Parity Party?
Lead Dog: It was (and I trust YOU know this, I'm explaining it for the benighted) a metaphor. But anyway, after this November, it'll be Column A from now on!
Vote for Hillary... Or Not!
On a personal level, I cannot stand Hillary Clinton - never could. There’s an arrogance about her (yes, I feel the same way about Bill Clinton). I always felt that she was (is) a complete opportunist. I guess they call that a “politician&rd...
This is typical. Writing a "confidential" email. Please. You might as well write: "please, release this to the press" in the subject line. This is nothing more than a PR stunt.
The gay pols who support Hillary Clinton do so for self gain. We need new leaders.
To answer the "where does the right to marry come from?" question--Typically (and this is the simplistic explanation) the argument is that it violates "Equal Protection Under the Law" to give one group of people rights and deny them to another. Essentially, the movement asserts that our relationships are as valid as hetero relationships and therefore state recognition and the rights/privileges/responsibilities/etc. that come along with marriage should not be denied to us. Whether judges or legislators make that decision is a difficult question, but often in the law courts are ahead of the curve on issues because jurists don't run for reelection the same way representatives do (or in many cases at all).
Dump the bitch!
Why not just ban all marriage? I think that's just as likely to happen as gay marriage.
Here we go again, jettisoning solidarity and the rights of the poor to go jousting at windmills. It's one thing for rich gays who can afford to take a "principled" stand to demand marriage equality. It's quite another thing to destroy the push for domestic partner benefits, such as immigration rights, shared healthcare, etc. Poor gays are the ones who suffer most from this ideologically "pure" approach.
The gays rights establishment needs to make peace with the idea that America is 20-30 years away from being able to accept full marriage equality for us. In the meantime, we should work as hard as we can to push for basic domestic partner benefits that can benefit the poor and working class among us, while working to help push Democrats and like-mided politicians into office.
It's precisely this kind of inability to play for the long run that cost the left the 2004 election and why we remain out of power.
When we will we understand how real politics works and push for real rights that we could win in the short-term.
Thank you, rich jerks, for screwing over our own kind yet again. I am glad you have the money and means to be so pure of intention.
You already have equal marriage rights. A gay man can marry a women, just like a straight man can and a gay woman can marry a man, just like a straight woman can. Equal.
Tell OR show me where in the U.S. Constitution that homosexual acts are protected. I mean the founding fathers would vomit if they knew how the extreme elements of our society was using the cover of there once brilliant document. Why should politicians cowar to a very small & minor segment of society. Homos you are not the same as me & my wife.
One more thing I can not get behind a movement that is dividing the country in half. This total exceptence of anything is ludicrous. Just keep it in your bedroom where acts of deviancy belong. THe bond between man & woman is natural.
No your so called movement is not the same as the acceptence of black Americans. FOr Christ sakes my 6 yr. old daughter came home talking about whether or not she is a lesbian. This is because of all the propaganda coming from the radical homosexual movement. The society that is being brought down like hammer on the youth of America is the death of this once great country