Part I – COMMON TACTICS:

Making the Connections Between the Right’s

Assaults on Gay Rights and Welfare Rights

The relationship between welfare rights and gay rights can be seen clearly in the strategies of the Right.  There are many similarities between the language and tactics of those fighting against LGBT rights and of those advocating for the recent welfare “reform”.  The fact that the Right uses similar approaches in confronting both movements is no doubt related to a connection between both causes. 

The Right has been engaged in mounting a moral panic.  This moral panic was stimulated by the changing roles of women and queer people, and the rise of single-motherhood.  The Right has used hot-button issues like homosexuality and welfare (and abortion) as a strong rallying cry to stem the tide of change that threatens the historical power and control of rich, white, heterosexual men.  It is not coincidental that those hot-button issues are all concerned with what families should look like and how much control we can have over our own bodies.

This first half of this paper will explain how the Right Wing’s use of similar against both communities makes evident the commonalties between the welfare rights movement and the gay rights movement.  It will also explore other similarities that exist between these two populations.  

A) Use of Stereotypes

General Use of Stereotypes

In order to justify cutting public assistance and other social welfare programs, the Right Wing has been relentless in its use of stereotypes and myths about people receiving welfare.  The images of the welfare cheat (who steals for years from taxpayers because he doesn’t want to work), and of the welfare mother (who keeps giving birth to child after child to increase welfare benefits) are two lies that have been successfully sold to the public as truth.  Also accepted has been the idea that welfare has been a strain on the nation’s economy.  Completely irrelevant apparently, is the truth that the average adult on welfare is a woman with recent work experience who is caring for children, or that the average mother on welfare has only two children, or that, even before the recent reform, welfare to the poor amounted to less than 6% of the national budget. (Center on Social Welfare Policy, 1996).

Similarly, for decades the Right has used stereotypes to justify discrimination against LGBT people.  Queer people are all too familiar with the long list of stereotypes and myths that have historically been used against us.  For example, the myth that we are child molesters, long-proven false, still rears its ugly head when conservatives want to challenge our right to adopt or to be visible in school classrooms.  (Hetrick Martin Institute, 1993)

Negative stereotypes such as these about welfare recipients and about LGBT people have been used to control public opinion and to promote specific social policies.  By constantly perpetuating these stereotypes in the media, the Right has enabled them to become part of the public discourse and embedded in the public consciousness.  This makes it easier for politicians to tap into these public sentiments to create social policy based upon these stereotypes.

Accusations of “Bad Choices”

            One of the stereotypes that have been perpetuated about both poor people and queer people is the idea that these groups have made bad lifestyle choices.  By depicting poverty and queerness as simple choices that could be easily changed if one truly desires to, the Right Wing has created for America an excuse to ignore (or worsen) the problems faced by those populations. 

The poor are depicted as lazy or irresponsible people who are choosing not to work.  The facts (that they may not have the education or skills needed to find a job, or that they may have health problems that prevent them from working or the reality that there are not jobs available) are ignored.  Instead, the Right perpetuates a myth that depicts poor people as choosing to take advantage of a society that cannot afford it (D. Carlson, 1997; Family Research Council, 1995; Schlafly, 1996)..  Right Wing leaders also seem to love discussing single motherhood as simply a bad choice.  They have succeeded in creating in the public the unfounded (and illogical) belief that poor women are casually, lazily, selfishly, choosing to have extra children so that they can get an extra $3 a day from the government in welfare (Center for Law and Social Policy, 1999; Donovan, 1993; Wattenberg, 1998).

Queer people are also accustomed to being depicted as having made a bad choice.  Right Wing editorials, position papers, lobbying, ad campaigns and sermons continue to talk about homosexuality as a destructive lifestyle choice that can be easily un-chosen by those who see the error of their ways. (Coral Ridge Ministries, 1997; Curtis, 1996; DeNicola, 1999)  Nowhere in their arguments is there room for the idea that for most people (straight or queer), changing their orientation is not an option.  And even less acceptable is the idea that people who do actively choose homosexuality have made a perfectly acceptable choice.

Both groups are also told that their sexual behavior is a bad choice.  (See also “Government Control of Our Bodies” in the next section.)  The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force makes this comparison:

Single mothers are being accused of irresponsible sexual behavior and being threatened with having to bear and raise their children without financial support in the same way that people with AIDS are accused of irresponsible sexual behavior and left to die without support.  The Far Right has long used our supposed “bad behavior” as the centerpiece argument in their efforts to strip us of our humanity and our rights.  We must stand against any such moral judgements that are used to justify disenfranchisement and cruelty.  (Timoner, 1995)

            Having been depicted by the Right as guilty of making bad choices, the gay community should be especially skeptical when we see those same tactics being used against poor people. 

Not All Gays Are Rich

The myth that queer people have more disposable income than do other people seems to have been internalized by our own community, if we are to judge from the silence with which most LGBT organizations have greeted recent welfare reform.  How else to explain the conceptualization, by HRC and many others, of welfare as “not a gay issue”?  Yet the truth is that LGBT people are not any wealthier than the rest of the population.

The idea that gays and lesbians earn more than heterosexuals is a falsehood that grew out of marketing surveys conducted by a few magazines.  When these surveys are quoted, what is usually omitted is that these magazines are directed at middle- and upper-class, urban, white, gay men (Badgett, 1998).  Missing from this picture of gay men were poor gay men and gay men of color. 

In addition, lesbians were not represented by most of these surveys.  Since women still earn $.76 for every $1 made by men for the same work, many lesbian-headed households bring in considerably less than do heterosexual ones.  Also absent from this economic profile were homeless queer people.  Since LGBT youth disproportionately make up 50% of the youth living on NYC streets, it can be assumed that including homeless people would bring down the average income of queer people (Hetrick Martin Institute, 1993; Kruks, 1991).  Furthermore, because of society’s relentless need to pathologize all those who challenge gender roles, most transgender people find it difficult, if not impossible, to find any employment at all (Blumenstein, 1999).  Finally, anti-LGBT workplace discrimination has been documented as a reality.  Studies show that homophobia diminishes queer people’s salaries and chances of promotion (Badgett, 1998). 

The present-day reality of life in the U.S. without non-discrimination laws is that any survey conducted would have to be done with great care.  It is possible that those people who are most comfortable and secure being honest about their sexuality are those queer people who are well off financially.  People with extra disposable income may have less to lose by being openly gay than do low-income people who feel they cannot possibly risk being fired or kicked out of their families’ homes (Badgett, 1998).

The LGBT community often uses the expression “we are everywhere”.  Since this is true, and LGBT people do exist in all economic groups, it is important for gay organizations to keep the needs of poor queers on their agendas.  An LGBT organization that doesn’t see welfare as a queer issue is defining queer as exclusively “white, wealthy gay men”.

It’s Not Only the Poor Who Get Welfare

Another stereotype that seems particularly relevant here is the myth that only poor people receive welfare.  By presenting welfare as the exclusive domain of the poor, the Right Wing has managed to create resentment and indignation from middle- and upper-class citizens despite the fact that they actually receive more government welfare money than do the poor.

Business meal deductions, financial aid for students, lower tax rates on capital gains, Social Security survivor benefits, accelerated depreciation, tax breaks to keep business from leaving a city, – these are but a few of the many forms of government aid handed out to middle- and upper-class people and to corporations.  Even before the recent welfare reform, poor people got less in welfare than did anyone else. (Moore, 1996)

            In 1992, the government spent about $464 billion on entitlements that people receive regardless of how wealthy they may be.  These include Social Security, Medicare, veteran’s pensions and retirement, and unemployment insurance benefits.  This is approximately 10 times more than was spent on AFDC and Food Stamps in the same year. (Albeda, 1996)

The health insurance that many middle- and upper-class people receive as a benefit from their employer is not taxed by our government, even though it is a form of income.  This tax deduction cost the government $47 billion in 1992.  The cost of providing health coverage to the poor through Medicaid cost the government about ½ that amount. (Albeda, 1996)

Another example of welfare to the middle- and upper-classes is the tax break given to homeowners (which is not available to renters).  These mortgage interest deductions from income taxes cost the government almost $50 billion dollars in 1993, as opposed to the $17 billion that was spent on low-income assistance and low-rent public housing.  (Albeda, 1996)

Finally, corporate America receives more welfare than do any group of individuals.  Tax breaks and direct subsidies to big businesses cost the government far more than all of our social services programs.  Estimates of how much money is spent on corporate welfare vary from $170 billion to $450 billion. (Barlett, 1998; Zepezar, 1996)

It is not my argument, at this time, that all welfare to middleclass and wealthy families is wrong.  Rather, I mean to challenge the carefully constructed lie that only the poor get free money from the government.  When LGBT people hear any of the lies that the Right perpetuates, it is important for us to counter them with the truth, - just as we do when the Right’s lies are about us.  Each time the lies of the Right are revealed, it weakens their power to lie about us. 

B) Regulating Behavior

Government Control of Our Bodies

Part of the recent welfare reform has been directed at lowering the rate of “illegitimate” pregnancies among women on welfare.  Through “family caps”, the government denies benefits for additional children born to women on welfare.  (Center for Law and Social Policy, 1999; Project Vote Smart).  In addition, the PRA provides $100 million to be divided among the top five states that reduce “out-of-wedlock” births, without increasing abortions.

These new rules represents legislators’ efforts to tell poor women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.  It is an attempt by politicians to impose their morality upon poor citizens by denying them basic safety net survival provisions.  They are not unlike the Hyde Amendment which bans the use of federal funds for abortions, making it harder for poor women to get abortions, but did has no affect on wealthier women who can afford to pay for abortions themselves.  Other efforts exist to control the reproductive behavior of poor women, such as the program in Kansas that provides free Norplant (a temporary, 5-year, sterilization) to women on welfare. (Roberts, 1997; S. Thomas, 1998)  All of these efforts parallel the way the government has used social policy to also deny LGBT people control over their own bodies.

As of the end of 1998, fifteen states continued to outlaw consensual oral or anal sexual intercourse for heterosexual or homosexual couples.  Six additional states apply this law exclusively to homosexual couples.  The penalties for engaging in sodomy, which vary from state to state (and often from judge to judge), can range from a $500 fine to a 20-year prison sentence.  (ACLU, 1998; Biemersderfer, 1998; Bull, 1998; Scarborough, 1999).

Transgender people are confronted with government control of their bodies every day.  In a society where gender is narrowly defined (by mainstream culture, by doctors, by mental health organizations, and, of course, by government) in dichotomous terms, transgender people are constantly being told to use their bodies in ways that are not natural for them.  Deviation from cultural and legal norms is severely stigmatized, and not protected by the government in any way.

These examples illustrate how elected officials have imposed very serious consequences for LGBT people and welfare recipients who do not comply with what the government considers appropriate uses of our bodies.  It is rare that LGBT organizations publicly make this connection between these two populations.  Many (but not all) in the LGBT movement do make the connection between sodomy laws and the anti-abortion movement: many queer people understand the connection between controlling women’s reproductive rights and controlling LGBT people’s sexual activities.  However, the connection of LGBT people to welfare reform’s family caps has not often been made explicit.  We must fight any attempt to legislate sexuality, regardless of who is being targeted.

Promotion of “Family Values”

We need a system that can support people who are trying to

do the right thing – who choose the right marriage partner,

get married and have children.  (Ebert, 1995). 

This quote, from Christian American magazine, was made by Christian conservative presidential candidate Alan Keyes.  It summarizes his views on both welfare and gay families.  His rhetoric, like that of most on the far right, is so similar when it comes to these two issues, that it is impossible to distinguish about which subject he was speaking.  (In this case, it was welfare.)

The Right Wing’s relentless promotion of the “traditional” family is very much connected to (but separate from) the issue of government control of our bodies.  The Right portrays both welfare recipients and LGBT people as threats to its notion of family.

One of the most popular welfare myths conjured by the Right is that of the pregnant, unwed, black welfare mother whose constant state of pregnancy and unrepentant laziness are not only a strain on the economy but also a threat to traditional families everywhere.  Despite the fact that this stereotype is not accurate, it is used relentlessly by the Right to promote its own agenda, which is symbolized by a very particular family structure. This ideal family is comprised of a heterosexual married couple with children (and this family is usually white and headed by the father).  Illustrating this point is the rise of the Promise Keepers, a Christian male group that seeks a return to the two-parent, male-headed homes that are, allegedly, centered around biblical scripture.  (Center for Democracy Studies, 1997; Diamond, 1996; Political Research Associates, 1997)  In fact, Right Wing leaders have been very up front and consistent in claiming that one of the goals of welfare reform is to stigmatize single motherhood and to promote two-parent married households (United States Congress, 1996)..

This stereotype of the pregnant black unwed welfare mother has been used as a link in portraying all unmarried mothers (across class and racial lines) as dangerous threats to the institution of marriage and to the breakdown of families everywhere.  The cries of concern about increased “illegitimacy” rates are voiced by those who describe of the breakdown of the “traditional” family as heralding the downfall of the entire society.  (Donovan, 1993; Family Research Council, 1995; Kennedy, 1996; Marshall, 1995; Stanton, 1996)

Similarly, LGBT people are also portrayed by the Right Wing as threats to the traditional family unit, (and are also blamed for all of the societal ills that allegedly follow).  Gay marriage is depicted by conservative political and religious leaders as capable of undoing centuries of heterosexual marital bliss.  (This is despite the fact that many LGTB activists believe that gay marriage is essentially a conservative element of the LGBT movement’s agenda, which, through the emulation of heterosexual rituals, actually reinforces the validity of the institution of marriage, instead of actually challenging or undermining it.).  Right Wing religious organizations have also lobbied relentlessly against domestic partnership and queer adoption rights. 

The Right Wing clearly has a deep investment in sustaining the patriarchal structure of American society.  To maintain its powerful and influential position, the Right uses these unfounded warnings about the threats presented to families by welfare illegitimacy and by homosexuality.  Any discussion by the Right about “illegitimate pregnancies” and family structures, immediately has implications for LGBT parents.  The LGBT movement must recognize the dangers that exist for us when the Right attacks welfare recipients in order to promote a two-parent heterosexual family.

(Christian Coalition, 1995; Curtis, 1997; Ebert, 1995; Peyton, 1996; Stanton, 1996)

Tax Breaks for Heterosexual Families

The Right has lobbied hard for tax breaks for families.  For example, Right Wing Senator Don Nickels sponsored the bill S 1134 that would provide family tax relief.  This bill would essentially give welfare to middle class families with stay-at-home mothers (but not to working mothers, divorced mothers, single mothers, etc.).  As explained earlier, tax breaks are forms of welfare that come without the stigmas that accompany welfare to the poor.  Impoverished families and single mothers that rely on TANF are being told, by Right Wing politicians, that they are undeserving of government aid.  And yet, those same politicians then turn around and advocate for that same aid to those families with mothers who fit their “traditional” image of family.

The poor are not the only ones who don’t fit that traditional image.  The Right (in its battles against LGBT marriage, domestic partnership and adoption rights) has also lobbied relentlessly against any government recognition of LGBT families.  For example, Senator Nickels was also the prime sponsor of two other bills (that eventually evolved into, and passed as, the Defense of Marriage Act) which forbade gay marriages.  This means that those tax-breaks (welfare) that Nickels wanted for middle class families would only be available to heterosexual middleclass families.