A response to my widely-circulated post calling bullshit on people who refuse to take Hillary Clinton's yes on marriage equality for an answer...

The flip side of this argument is that the LGBT community more than any other interest group has a terrible track record when it comes to embracing those candidates/electeds who have "evolved" on their issues far more than those who have been with them since day one. HRC's endorsement of Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, who hosted gay pride events when he was Mayor of Burlington and was one of the few in Congress to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, is a perfect example of this pathological dynamic.

Where I live in New Jersey, Jim McGreevey, Ray Lesniak, Dick Codey, and Steve Sweeney were all terrible in the eyes of Garden State Equality until they immediately became fabulous. Cory Booker, who admitted that he had "evolved" on LGBT issues, was given far more attention and love by the LGBT community than either Rush Holt and Frank Pallone, the latter of whom also voted against DOMA, when they were running in a special Senatorial election to replace Frank Lautenberg.

What incentive does any elected have to vote with the LGBT community when they know that not only will all be forgiven when they eventually "evolve" on their issues, they will be given favorable treatment over far more consistent allies?

This pathology practically begs electeds to betray the LGBT community in a way that is akin to Battered Women's Syndrome. Why should any elected stick their neck out on trans issues while they are still polling so low? Why shouldn't an elected benefit now from being anti-trans so that s/he can cash in on being pro-trans later, once Caitlyn Jenner has her own talk show and Ellen has gone the way of Rosie O'Donnell? At some point, the LGBT community needs to grow a spine, punish those candidates and electeds who have not been consistent on their issues, and reward those who have been loyal allies for decades. Right now is as good a time as any, especially when Hillary Clinton has proven how dishonest and untrustworthy she is time and time again on issue after issue after issue.

Obviously, if she is the Democratic nominee, she should be supported by the LGBT community against a far more conservative Republican opponent, but when it comes to a primary election and the LGBT community has the opportunity to choose between someone who has been on the wrong side of almost every issue until polls told her when to "evolve" on them and someone who has been with them since day one, the choice should be an obvious one.

To say that you are bitankual sends the message that you don't think that there is any difference between someone like Bernie Sanders, who always takes the correct position, and someone like Hillary Clinton, who always takes the popular position. I would like to think that you are better than that—but maybe someone who has such a flexible perspective on something like monogamy actually finds more value in candidates/electeds who are as dishonest and untrustworthy as Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Sincerely,

Bertin Lefkovic

When I asked Bertin if he wanted his letter to run with his name on it, he said yes. When I asked him how he wanted to be identified, he wrote...

Bertin Lefkovic has been a straight ally of the LGBT community since he first started going to Indigo Girls concerts in the late 80s/early 90s and some of the most wonderful women, including but not limited to Jackie and Lauree, who he still loves with every ounce of his being, even though they, like far too many other members of the LGBT community, are too myopic to realize that Hillary Clinton is becoming less and less the more pragmatic choice and more and more the more dangerous choice for anyone who wants a Democratic nominee who can defeat Donald Trump in this, the year of the outsider.

And then added this in a postscript...

And thank you for your quick response to my e-mail, Dan, and your willingness to publish it even though it includes some rather harsh statements directed at you. Even though we may disagree on this issue, please know that I still love you for your evisceration of Rick Santorum and so much else you have written. (Did you happen to catch the last debate he was in before he dropped out when he asked the audience to google him? Could he really be that stupid? One can only hope that Trump picks him to be his running mate so that the fun can continue.)

Just two points: Being bitankual doesn't mean I see no difference between Hillary and Bernie—on the issue of LGBT equality, or on other issues. I'm a supporter of single payer, I wanna see the big banks broken up, I want higher taxes on the rich, free(er) college tuition, subsidies for mass transit, etc. I managed to perceiv differences between Hillary and Barack way back in '08 and I was bitankual then too. Being bitankual means I like and admire Hillary and Bernie—not necessarily in equal measures—and that I will support whoever gets the Dems nomination. But it wouldn't be hard to guess who I'd vote for if I lived in a state with a primary that came early enough to actually matter.

And...

Ethical non-monogamy—my preferred brand—has nothing whatsoever to dishonesty or untrustworthiness. Grounding a defense of candidates who were always good on LGBT issues in stereotypes about straight, gay, and bi people in non-traditional relationships is kinda crazy hypocritical. And while dishonest non-monogamy may be the norm (stats! data! science!), that's not the kind of non-monogamy practiced by those of us who are openly, honestly, and ethically non-monogamous. (Who practices non-ethical, dishonest non-monogamy? Public monogamists.) It's true that I will sometimes give people permission to be unethically non-monogamous, Bertin, but only in circumstances where cheating represents the least worst option.

I love you too, Bertin.