Preferences For Gays?

Does failure to award preferences to gays in college admissions, hiring, etc., when such preferences are given to other minority groups amount to discrimination against gays?

I have argued here more than once (such as here and here) that many people oppose equal rights for gays because they fear that equal treatment, once provided, would quickly morph into preferential treatment, as it did for blacks. Now it would appear that the demands for special treatment have already begun.

Apparently under the radar of the national press, Gary Shays, a Democratic National Committee member from California, has introduced a proposal, now under consideration, to require state parties add slots for Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender delegates to the national convention, just as they now must do for blacks and women. (See my post on “The Carefully Crafted ‘Diversity’ of the Democratic Convention.”)

The Black Caucus and Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore’s campaign, are fighting this proposal because they believe it would reduce the number of black delegates and reduce black support for Democrats.

UPDATE [11 June]

A couple of commenters below have argued that the DNC could get something like a twofer by insisting that one of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) slots be filled by a black.

That, however, may be easier said than done. The “black” requirement is relatively easy to accomplish, but the LGBT community is also concerned that the Ls and the Gs and the Bs and the Ts are also fairly represented. In that regard, consider thse comments by gay activist Jon Winkleman, published on Bob Smith’s The Daily Politics, a New York Daily News blog.

The big LGBT sleeper issue will be the Shays Amendment in the Rules and Bylaws Committee. Gary Shays of CA introduced a proposal that would add LGBT people to the diversity goals the DNC recommends to the states as they decide how to select their representatives on the DNC. Right now only 2% of the DNC is openly LGBT.

There are no trans reps and I don’t believe there are any lesbians of color. the shays amendment would not only help diversify the LGBT Caucus but better representation would have an enormous impact on the LGBT platform in 2008 and more importantly the conversation amongst candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

It would appear that not only must delegate slots be reserved for LGBT members, but that the DNC must take steps to ensure that the LGBT Caucus itself is properly “diverse” by having sufficent “reps” from L’s, G’s, B’s, and T’s, and presumably that those subgroups are themselves sufficiently “diverse” (no “lesbians of color”?).

The Washington Blade Online reports that

New York gay Democratic activist Jon Winkelman, who serves on the board of National Stonewall Democrats, wrote the e-mail, which Smith said he published verbatim in his blog. In his e-mail, Winkelman said he obtained his information about purported opposition to the Shay proposal from gay DNC member Rick Stafford of Minnesota and New York party activist Emily Giske, a lesbian who is one of several vice chairs of the New York State Democratic Party.

Stafford and Giske did not return calls seeking comment.

….

Gay DNC member Raymond Buckley of New Hampshire said the entire DNC gay caucus supports Shay’s rules change proposal and is hopeful that the party will adopt the change later this year.

Brazile called the blog report of her opposition to the Shays proposal “ridiculous.”

The Washington Blade article linked above reports that the DNC has been embroiled in a series of disputes concerning LGBT issues, most of which has gone unremarked in the mainstream press. Indeed, the DNC today is a prime example of the morass that lies at the bottom of the long slide down the slippery slope of identity politics.

Say What? (6)

  1. Rhymes With Right June 10, 2006 at 1:16 pm | | Reply

    Texas Dems already do exctly that, as my wife discovered two years ago when she sought a convention slot. I think they do the same for the state convention.

    I guess thy want to give teh illusion of looking like America, een if tpolicies and platform do not conform with the beliefs of most Americans. riehve

  2. Foobarista June 11, 2006 at 4:59 am | | Reply

    There was always an old joke that the only way you could get a tenure track job in many fields if you were a white man was to “come out” as gay.

    After all, it’s the only easy and uncontestable way you can self-define into a “victim group”…

  3. meep June 11, 2006 at 7:32 am | | Reply

    Why not make sure the LGBT people are also black? Can fill two quota slots at once! Score!

  4. Alex Bensky June 11, 2006 at 7:44 am | | Reply

    What’s the problem? Ms. Brazile should just find some gay blacks and kill two birds with one stone.

  5. meep June 11, 2006 at 10:01 am | | Reply

    Jeez. I try to come up with something to make both identity groups happy, and the bean-counters want to make everyspace of their ever-complex identity Venn diagram filled out. Some people will just never be pleased.

    Here’s an idea — the Dems don’t seem to have any problem getting the LGBT and black communities voting for them, so why don’t they try for groups underrepresented amongst their voters, like pro-lifers, rednecks, and (non-minority/govt-contactors) small biz owners?

  6. ELC June 12, 2006 at 9:22 am | | Reply

    All this wrangling will be moot when the Islamofascists take over the country and push all the “LGBT”s under falling buildings.

    But George W. Bush is the real enemy, dontchaknow.

Say What?