I think it's always best to start w/ a little history. So Bayard Rustin played a major role in the history of the civil rights movement- serving as a go to man for MLK interms of PR etc. So why haven't we ever heard of him? Why isn't his name heralded alongside Rosa Parks, Malcom X, MLK JR in our history texts? OH, thats right he was homosexual.
To our modern thinking this is ridiculous! But from the viewpoint of the 1950s 1960s, not so much. Who was MLK working with? He himself was a reverend, and he and his supporters called their meeting the Southern Christian Leadership conference ( sorry I have the wording a little wrong). They were appealing to a largely Christain African Americans base with relatively conservative values. had Bayard Rustin taken a more prominet role, there would have been backlash indeed! Not only would a large part of their Christian black base taken umbrage but their white support as well. So, despite it's very Un PC nature it makes sense that Bayard Rustin was a hidden role player in the Civil Rights movement. That does not mean however that he should not recieve the attention he is due today.
However how many other homosexuals have had their names erased form history due to their sexual preference? Moreover how many closeted homosexuals have played prominent roles in world history. As Ms. Freeman mentioned James Buchanon may have been a homosexual! ( Though I would not trot him out too much as an emblem- it might be more harmful then good- he was a kind of crummy president).
So onto politics. Is there a quetsion of whether gays can lead effectively? Indeed, but history has shown this not to be true- Alexander the Great, Richard the Lionhearted, and a plethora of English French etc Kings ( though James I of the England as Dr.Neery explained was a " dolt"), proved that sexual orientation has no effect on a person's abiltity to lead a nation.
That having been said do I think an openly gay person could be elected to office today in the US? Uhh, sorry like MagdalenFr and so many of my other peers have said,no. In Cambridge, San Fransisco and a few other open minded cities- gays could easily be elected to office with no one blinking an eye. I'll even venture a guess that maybe, if the candidate was good enough a homosexual could be elected to mayor or to a positon of power in any city. I think the key for a gay candidate in Boston however would be, keeping their agenda more moderatley focused. I don't think a very liberal gay candidate could win in any city. But could a gay Republican ( yes there are some!!!)????
In a presidential race or a gubernatorial one? Nope, I can't believe that a gay candidate will be elected any time in the near future. I'd be willing to bet we'd first have a woman president, a African American president, and maybe even a Latino or Asian president before the nation would elect a gay president. In a nation where in Georgia and many other southern states they still consider evolution to be a " theory" and creationism the norm, and where Bush was re-elected on what some pundits attribute to " moral"/ anti- gay marraige reasons, there is not enough "open minded"people to believe that a homosexual could hold office. For too many people ( ala Rev. Phelps) homosexuality is a grevious crime to overshadow any number of brilliant leadership qualities or ideas. Which I suppose is the nations loss. As a conservative, I would vote for a qualified, intelligent gay conservative- no questions asked.
To our modern thinking this is ridiculous! But from the viewpoint of the 1950s 1960s, not so much. Who was MLK working with? He himself was a reverend, and he and his supporters called their meeting the Southern Christian Leadership conference ( sorry I have the wording a little wrong). They were appealing to a largely Christain African Americans base with relatively conservative values. had Bayard Rustin taken a more prominet role, there would have been backlash indeed! Not only would a large part of their Christian black base taken umbrage but their white support as well. So, despite it's very Un PC nature it makes sense that Bayard Rustin was a hidden role player in the Civil Rights movement. That does not mean however that he should not recieve the attention he is due today.
However how many other homosexuals have had their names erased form history due to their sexual preference? Moreover how many closeted homosexuals have played prominent roles in world history. As Ms. Freeman mentioned James Buchanon may have been a homosexual! ( Though I would not trot him out too much as an emblem- it might be more harmful then good- he was a kind of crummy president).
So onto politics. Is there a quetsion of whether gays can lead effectively? Indeed, but history has shown this not to be true- Alexander the Great, Richard the Lionhearted, and a plethora of English French etc Kings ( though James I of the England as Dr.Neery explained was a " dolt"), proved that sexual orientation has no effect on a person's abiltity to lead a nation.
That having been said do I think an openly gay person could be elected to office today in the US? Uhh, sorry like MagdalenFr and so many of my other peers have said,no. In Cambridge, San Fransisco and a few other open minded cities- gays could easily be elected to office with no one blinking an eye. I'll even venture a guess that maybe, if the candidate was good enough a homosexual could be elected to mayor or to a positon of power in any city. I think the key for a gay candidate in Boston however would be, keeping their agenda more moderatley focused. I don't think a very liberal gay candidate could win in any city. But could a gay Republican ( yes there are some!!!)????
In a presidential race or a gubernatorial one? Nope, I can't believe that a gay candidate will be elected any time in the near future. I'd be willing to bet we'd first have a woman president, a African American president, and maybe even a Latino or Asian president before the nation would elect a gay president. In a nation where in Georgia and many other southern states they still consider evolution to be a " theory" and creationism the norm, and where Bush was re-elected on what some pundits attribute to " moral"/ anti- gay marraige reasons, there is not enough "open minded"people to believe that a homosexual could hold office. For too many people ( ala Rev. Phelps) homosexuality is a grevious crime to overshadow any number of brilliant leadership qualities or ideas. Which I suppose is the nations loss. As a conservative, I would vote for a qualified, intelligent gay conservative- no questions asked.
Comment