Gay Democrats Elected to Lead Young Democrats of America July 30, 2007
Los Angeles, CA - The National Stonewall Democrats (NSD) congratulated a newly-elected leadership of the Young Democrats of America (YDA) last week, including two openly-gay Stonewall Democrats who will now lead the organization as president and executive vice president through 2009.
"Young voters are the new base of the Democratic Party, and we are proud that the Young Democrats of America support equality for LGBT families and have placed their faith in the leadership of two great Democratic leaders who happen to be gay," Jo Wyrick, NSD executive director, said in a release. "The future of our party now has an opportunity to demonstrate to all Democrats how fully engaging our community is politically viable and smart."
David Hardt of Texas was elected as president of the Young Democrats of America with 93 percent of the delegate votes during the organization's national convention in Dallas. Also elected was Chris Anderson of Tennessee as the organization's executive vice president. The election of Hardt and Anderson mark the first time that the Young Democrats of America will be led by an openly-gay leadership team.
The Young Democrats of America GLBT Caucus also elected its new leadership on Saturday, including the election of NSD Board Member Kyle Bailey of Georgia as Caucus vice-chair. Bailey also serves as president of the Atlanta Stonewall Democrats. The other elected GLBT Caucus officers include Rachel Kau-Tayler (California) as Caucus chair, Rob Hudson (Florida) as Caucus secretary and Byron LaMasters (Texas) as Caucus treasurer.
The Young Democrats of America have undertaken a dramatic outreach to LGBT Democrats over the past several years. Congruently, the National Stonewall Democrats have also increased their outreach to LGBT Young and College Democrats. NSD has established youth scholarships for national trainings, including the "Keith Smith Fund" designed to honor the outreach work of former NSD Board Member Keith Smith of Oklahoma. Over the past two years, young leaders within the Stonewall Democrats also have established Stonewall Young Democrats chapters across the country, which serve to organize LGBT Youth within the Democratic Party.
As the official youth arm of the Democratic Party, YDA mobilizes young people under the age of 36 to participate in the electoral process, influence the ideals of the Democratic Party and develops the skills of the youth generation to serve as leaders at the local and national level. YDA has 43 chartered states and US territories with over 1,500 local chapters. In 2003, members of the National Stonewall Democrats authored and passed language adopted by YDA which declared the organization's support for civil marriage for same-sex couples.
Copyright 2007 GayWired.com, All Rights Reserved
Join up or Log on!
You must be a member to comment on articles.
If you are already a member, log on now. If you are not
a member, Join up!
Ted, it wouldn't because a Republican leadership will never introduce gay rights legislation. Any vote for a Republican tips the scale in favor that Republicans will gain that leadership. So your idea of having both parties working together to pass gay rights legislation assumes that both WANT to pass gay rights legislation. That simply is not the case.
8/4/2007 9:21 PM
Ted
Why wouldn't it, Tommy? Having members of both parties work toward progress in our laws is better than having members of one party that takes us for granted.
Karl, my point is regardless of what an individual candidate's beliefs may be, the party you elect is more likely to be the party that is in power. If that party is Republican, there will be NO gay rights legislation introduced and therefore gay rights suffer. If that party is Democratic, there's a chance that gay rights legislation will move forward.
I'm fine with people trying to change the Republican's minds on gay rights legislation. But when it comes time to vote, don't fool yourself into believing that voting for a socially liberal Republican is going to help the gay rights movement.
My point is, it would be good for the gay rights struggle if in 2008 both general election candidates were gay-friendly, effectively taking the issue off the table. That's only possible if someone like Rudy Giuliani gets the Republican nomination, which is why it can be worth working inside the GOP on occasion. Like it or not, it's a force in elections and always will be. So make it a good one. It's only under Bush that the GOP has been rabidly anit-gay, and the majority of GOPers are anxious to move past that, which is why Rudy conintues to lead the field by a large margin. Bill Clinton is an excellent example of a politician that pays lip service to gays but proceeded to sign harmful legislation into law that he didn't have to. Frankly, I suspect Bush Sr. would have been no more harmful than Clinton on that count. And I think Giuliani would be much better. There ya go...
Karl, when has it been true that electing a Republican doesn't tip the balance of power in favor of the Republican party? And when that party is in leadership, don't gay rights suffer?
I'm not generalizing, I'm being pragmatic.
7/31/2007 9:23 PM
Ted
I was worried this would be a ridiculous exchange with someone insisting on the inherent evil of all things Republican, so thanks for not being unreasonable, Tommy. It is unfortunate that certain gay people (such as Mark Foley, if being a homosexual chicken-hawk makes one "gay") completely ignore or reject gay rights.
I vote for certain Democratic candidates in the general election (if they aren't too big-government or fiscally irresponsible or if the Republican is a neo-con or Bible-thumper) while in primaries, I support the more open-minded, libertarian Republicans.
But not everyone sees it the same way I do. Some LCR types think that if they vote Republican in the general election that the party will be more likely to listen to them in the primaries. I think that defeats the purpose--you want the party to realize it's giving up votes by being anti-gay.
I think the LCR may be closer to my philosophy than before, but I just read their emails, so I can't be sure.
7/31/2007 8:48 PM
todd aka st. breesus
absolutely. it's so important that we keep ALL politicians on their toes. party loyalty will get you ignored by politicians cause at that point they don't need to work for your vote, it's taken for granted. examples of this occuring are all over the place with both parties.
Tommy, your only problem is that you take what is generally true and assume it is always true. Party loyalty is a good way to get politicians to ignore you. There are some Republicans out there who are gay-friendly, and when that's the case, one can afford to evaluate the candidates on other important issues. Given the choice of civil liberties or good economic policy, I'll choose civil liberties. But I look for opportunities when I don't have to choose between the two.
7/31/2007 2:24 PM
todd aka st. breesus
i don't see why not. would be interestig to see stats on that.
Couldn't one belong to a Republican organization to work at changing the party platform and still vote for the Democratic candidate?
7/31/2007 2:00 PM
todd aka st. breesus
i completely understand what your saying tommy, totally. but i think gays who are supporting repubs and the lcr are doing so not because they're not for gay rights. i think they'e doing it to bring about changes within the party, and hopefully to better gay rights in the long run.
are they idealistic? probably so. ignorant? doubtful.
it's an uphill battle for them and i wish them luck. but overall i do think they have good intentions in working for change, however misguided it may seem to some people at the moment.
i totally respect your opinion that gay rights is numero uno on your political sheet.
for me, it's not. it's getting our men and women out of the middle east and ending this slaughter. it's putting a stop to the ungodly amounts of money we're wasting on a region that doesn't want peace, or even democracy. it's getting our politicians (on both sides of the aisle) to grow a pair of balls and stand up to this administration and say enough of this horseshit, let's get the hell out of there and focus on where the real threat is.
I understand that people don't always prioritize their issues the same. What saddens me, is that gay people might support Republicans because gay rights is not important to them. This has a negative effect on my life and could effect their lives as well. Gay rights is the most important political subject in my life as it is the one that most directly effects me.
7/31/2007 1:36 PM
todd aka st. breesus
uh....not my private life, no. im doing pretty much whatever i want in that realm at the moment. no one is bothering me about it. im also single so it's easier for me not to feel some of the pressures that same sex couples are experiencing. since those pressurs aren't affecting me, i focus my energy on things that are and most of those aren't gay related.
but i understand that could change completely tomorrow and if it affects you more than me then you have my sympathy.
at this moment in my life, i just don't base many of my political decisions/priorities on my sexuality.
Do you believe that your private life isn't already being intruded upon?
I believe it is, as I'm currently denied rights that are currently afforded to heterosexual couples.
7/31/2007 1:20 PM
todd aka st. breesus
to each his own i guess.
if a political party intrudes in on my private life, which for the most part they haven't, then i won't be sad, i'll be pissed off and i'll act accordingly and do whatever i can to right that wrong.
and this goes for both parties. both of them at times try to intrude and impede liberties.
i know this won't go over well around these parts, but it is what it is.
7/31/2007 1:20 PM
todd aka st. breesus
to each his own i guess.
if a political party intrudes in on my private life, which for the most part they haven't, then i won't be sad, i'll be pissed off and i'll act accordingly and do whatever i can to right that wrong.
and this goes for both parties. both of them at times try to intrude and impede liberties.
i know this won't go over well around these parts, but it is what it is.
The way I see it, all Republicans are hurting me. They are promoting legislation that will prevent me from marrying, adopting children and generally living my life. I'm saddened when it turns out that the Republicans are themselves openly gay. I can understand wanting a more conservative government, but when voting for the conservative party means that you are also supporting the same lawmakers who will take away your own basic civil rights as well as my own, I'm saddened.
7/31/2007 12:53 PM
todd aka st. breesus
oh... ok.
hell if i was sad because of everyone's actions in this country i would have slit my wrists allready. thank god i could care less about most people.
the way i see it, the log cabin repubs aren't hurting me in any way. it's a free country and if that's who they choose to associate it with, then go for it. if they're lucky, they may be able to break some stereotypes that exist in the political circus.
you'd be surprised at how many out politically active homos there are that are Republican. In my chapter at my university we had about 1/3 of our members being gay and out. The Log Cabin Republicans is also a pretty good sized organization as well.
This is good news as I was in Chicago last summer for the DNC NYC host bid where I met an enthusiastic Sid McMath III who was sure to get the position. He was heading the Arkansas chapter of the YDA and touring the countryside. We spoke into the early hours, he listened very well. I enjoyed him but I felt he was "straight" and didnt have that "other side of the brain" empathy needed to be a viable candidate for leadership roles with a "heavyweight" affilliation to the Democratic party and its current agenda. Good to hear we have "family" in office.
