Gays and Lesbians in the Democratic Process

Rating:
Summary: Gay Studies for Policy Wonks
Review: This anthology made a good effort in trying to chart new territory and wed public policy research with lesbian and gay rights. In this book, researchers theorize whether classic political science or statistical theories have explained or will explain the trends in gay rights. Topics in this text include: the likelihood of gay or lesbian candidates winning office, the proliferation of anti-discrimination laws in the workplace, the tendency of certain voters to support gay rights and certain voters to oppose them, etc. David Segura contributes an important and insightful chapter on whether tactics to increase the number of elected officials of color will conflict with attempts to increase gay political representation. The book ends with a wonderful analysis made in the early 1970s regarding the political effectiveness of gay leadership. In fact, the book's strength is how much it reveals gay political history. In fact too, the latter chapters are much better than the former; the reader may want to read this anthology backwards, rather than forwards. Also, the contributors were from colleges, big and small, throughout the nation. So there's no hint that the work is legit merely because some Yale or Stanford faculty member wrote it. I have a few criticisms of this book. First, it truly is meant for the poli. sci. professor or student; it's not meant for John Doe Gay Man or Jane Doe Lesbian. The book is full of statistical variables, political science jargon, and numerous charts that will confuse un-trained readers. Second, though researchers are prudent in trying to determine who supports gay rights most, some of their findings border on the stereotypical. For example, it says that Jews and women are likely to support gay rights. Then what explains Dr. Laura? It says the very religious tend to oppose it. Then what explains pro-gay allies like Bishop Desmond Tutu or Coretta Scott King? This was an excellent book for poli. sci. students, especially lesbian or gay ones. However, it may be too complex, repetitive, and confusing for other audiences.