Two articles caught my eye today, on two different issues. I was going to write about them separately, but then realized they in fact relate to the same matter—our identities as both LGBT individuals and parents.
The first is an article in the Huffington Post by Evan Wolfson, head of Freedom to Marry. Wolfson says that Americans are ready to accept clear leadership on marriage equality, without the wishy-washiness of candidates who say they are for equality but support civil unions instead of marriage for same-sex couples. He pulls out data to support this claim, showing that “To date, every state legislator, including those running in conservative districts, who voted to support the freedom to marry and ran for re-election won,” and that when pro- and anti-marriage candidates run against each other, the pro-marriage candidate most often wins. When the pro-marriage candidate loses, it is not because of his/her stance on marriage equality.
The second article is by Roger Sinasohn at ParentDish. He points out a new study by the University of Chicago showing that after the No Child Left Behind Act passed, the middle 70% of students improved their test scores, the highest 10% did not change, but the bottom 20% showed a drop in test scores. The Act is not helping those most in need of assistance.
Not only that, but as NPR reports, Congress wants to cut funding from Reading First, one of the few parts of NCLB that teachers say is working. The program has come under attack for conflicts of interest, but the Department of Education claims it is now clean. Whatever the truth is, it is a sad statement on NCLB that one of its more effective components is tangled in controversy.
Where’s the connection? In the ballot box. For me, LGBT equality is a touchstone issue, but not an exclusive one. I would never vote for a candidate who did not espouse LGBT equality, just as I would never vote for one who was anti-choice. The choice gets trickier, however, when all of the viable (let’s be honest here) Democratic presidential candidates tout some fuzzy form of LGBT rights, i.e., “equality” sans marriage. How do I weigh this fuzziness (and the likelihood that the candidate really does believe in full equality, but doesn’t think that will get him or her elected) against other issues such as education reform, near and dear to my heart as a parent? What about environmental policy, or any of a dozen other matters?
In a way, it’s a good problem to have. I don’t have to eliminate any (Democratic) candidate from consideration because of his or her stance on a basic—if incomplete—set of LGBT rights. That’s a sign of progress. It means that other issues will predominate in determining my vote. If one candidate heeds Wolfson’s words and takes the plunge to full marriage quality, however, I just hope it’s the one whose plans for education, the environment, etc. I also feel are best. Otherwise I’ll face a tough choice. Then again, no one ever said democracy was easy.
thanks for posting what i’ve been struggling with (in my internal dialogue) about this. there is a solution to the problem we face in terms of wishy-washy democrats and lgbt rights. kucinich. i know, i know, he can’t win. i believe that we are obligated, if we have the option to avoid the lesser of lesser evils, kucinich at least is principled, supports full equality, environmental protection, all of it. in the primary anyway, can’t we just vote for SOMEONE we believe in?