GLAA responds to criticism of candidate ratings
Overlooked Socialist
I read with interest and amusement Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance President Rick Rosendall’s letter (July 18, Blade) complaining about being “excluded” from a recent Blade article on the D.C. Human Rights Amendment. Considering his organization’s crude dismissal of Socialist Worker Party candidate Mary Martin in the July 22 special election for City Council chair, I am reminded of an old adage about people in glass houses throwing stones.To explain, during the campaign GLAA sent out a questionnaire to the two candidates on the ballot, Martin and Democrat Linda Cropp, to determine their stands on issues of importance to D.C. Gay men and Lesbians, and, presumably, to make recommendations for endorsement. Despite stating her unequivocal opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act and support for the right of Gay men and Lesbians to marry and adopt children, Martin was slapped with a “+0.5” rating on a scale of “-10” to “+10” by GLAA, a score one would expect for the likes of Jesse Helms and Bob Dornan. Cropp, on the other hand, was given a “+5.0.” In view of the Democratic Party’s record on the above two questions, Cropp’s responses must have been eye-opening indeed. GLAA, however, kept its criteria to itself.
To me, a Gay socialist and D.C. voter, all of this smells to high heaven. Apparently, in the eyes of Mr. Rosendall and his friends, the only framework for defending Gay male and Lesbian civil rights is within the twin parties of austerity, war, and the fight against “crime” (e.g. the death penalty). Everyone else is to be excluded and ignored, no matter how strongly they solidarize with the rights of Gay people, and no matter how much Gay men and Lesbians are themselves ignored and betrayed by their “friends” in office.
I suggest to Rosendall that before crying about GLAA’s human rights credentials, he first take steps to jettison his organization’s secretive, exclusionary, and undemocratic methods. As a minority, we must first recognize our friends before we can take on our enemies.
Peter Anestos
Washington, D.C.
GLAA response to Peter Anestos
Monday, July 28, 1997
Readers Forum
The Washington Blade
1408 U Street, NW, 2nd Floor
Washington, DC 20009
Dear Editor:
Peter Anestos describes as a "crude dismissal" the 0.5 rating given by the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance to Socialist Worker Party candidate Mary Martin in her recent unsuccessful bid for DC Council chair. He further accuses us of "secretive, exclusionary, and undemocratic methods."
In fact, our ratings are exhaustively fair and scrupulously non-partisan, based on each candidate's commitments and record on our issues. Our meetings are open, are regularly listed in the Blade calendar, and are covered by a Blade reporter. Virtually everything we do is published on our website (www.glaa.org). Is this secretive?
Anestos claims that "GLAA ... kept its criteria to itself." In fact, our concerns were spelled out in our questionnaire and explained further in our "Agenda: 1997" document provided to both candidates. As stated in our ratings ad in the Blade, these concerns include ending regulatory abuses, restoring civilian oversight of the police, defending medical marijuana, securing equal rights for gay families, and ending the backlog at the Office of Human Rights. We offered each candidate a detailed briefing prior to the deadline for returning our questionnaire. Martin's opponent, Linda Cropp, availed herself of this briefing, while Martin did not. I had to phone Martin to remind her about the questionnaire, and accepted it after our announced deadline.
Anestos states that one purpose of our questionnaires is "presumably, to make recommendations for endorsement." In fact, our cover letter to candidates stated that "GLAA does not endorse candidates in partisan races," and this long-standing policy was reiterated in our ratings ad. Our ratings only inform voters on how the candidates "measure up" on gay issues.
Cropp's 5.0 rating, while less than her supporters would have liked, was indeed dramatically higher than Martin's. Cropp's higher score resulted from her superior grasp of the substance of our issues as shown in her responses, and her record of support on adoption, needle exchange, and sodomy law repeal. While Martin did as well as Cropp on the yes-or-no portion of the questionnaire, she lost a point on the substance of her responses. Not only does she oppose us on police and human rights enforcement, she opposes the entire American form of government.
[Note: this paragraph was omitted by the Blade.] For over 26 years, GLAA has sought more than mere expressions of solidarity from public officials. We expect them to help us secure Equal Justice Under Law. Trotskyist ramblings about capitalist oppression are not only useless to us, they fly in the face of the dramatic advances that gays have been making in Fortune 1000 companies.
Finally, Anestos is wrong to suggest that our 0.5 rating for Martin was what "one would expect for the likes of Jesse Helms and Bob Dornan." Based on their records (and our rating system), those homophobes could expect ratings between -4 and -10. But self-defeating "friends" like Martin and Anestos, who would rather spout far-left ideology than work for practical reforms, are no allies of ours.
Sincerely,
Rick Rosendall, President
Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance
Washington, DC