Warning: Imported from old college This post was moved from an older website hosted on a college server. These have been unedited and contain many mistakes. But, whatever. The SF Chronicle picked up my op-ed –Social Security Reform- Red, blue and rainbow: Social Security Reform- Red, blue and rainbow- Andrew Lee Sunday, March 13, 2005 Gay men and lesbians took a serious hit in the 2004 election. Republicans drew strong support from conservatives and like-minded independents opposed to same-sex marriage. Voters in 11 states passed ballot initiatives to reject such unions. Yet aspects of the Republican agenda could be advantageous for the gay community. Gay activists can make gains for same- sex partner benefits through Social Security privatization. As it is now, same-sex couples cannot receive Social Security survivor benefits or dependent benefits because they are not married under federal law. If Social Security were privatized, however, the federal government could not regulate the beneficiaries of private accounts. Same-sex partners, like any other beneficiary, could receive survivor benefits or dependent benefits. Nevertheless, the gay community is not quite ready to embrace President Bush’s plan. Social Security privatization places the gay community at a crossroads of its traditional Democratic affiliation and increased benefits for same-sex couples. In December, for instance, discussion of Social Security benefits in the gay community was pushed to the background. Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay activist organization, announced its need to “moderate its message and its goals.” One HRC official suggested to the New York Times in December that “supporting President Bush’s efforts to privatize Social Security partly in exchange for the right of gay partners to receive benefits under the program.” In response, more than 30 gay rights officials sent letters to every member of Congress denouncing HRC for trading gay rights for senior citizens’ rights. But this response does not necessarily represent the interests of the gay community. Organizations such as the Log Cabin Republicans, a conservative group for gays and lesbians, show that the gay community is just as divided on Social Security reform as the rest of the country. If allowed to go forth, Social Security privatization will limit the ability of the government to act as arbiter of Social Security survivor benefits, and therefore recognition of beneficiaries. Up to this point, gay activists have focused on working through the judiciary and state or local governments to recognize same-sex partnerships. Although the gay community might dream of government recognition, at present this is impractical. Without sweeping federal redefinition, gays and lesbians will continue to receive unequal benefits. If they are to make the best of the situation, they should support private accounts, forming alliances with Republicans who support limited government. Gay activists have little to lose from such support of Social Security privatization. Some worry that if activists highlight same-sex survivor benefits, President Bush may put legislation banning same-sex marriage on the calendar in order to guarantee support for Social Security privatization from party conservatives. But Republicans were planning another attempt at that legislation anyway. It is also possible that conservative Republicans might side with market (rather than moral) principles and support private accounts, leaving beneficiaries up to the discretion of the private account’s owner. For the gay community, then, there are no significant disadvantages from Republicans supporting Social Security privatization. Republicans, however, risk losing support for privatization because of the possibility of the same- sex survivor benefits outlined above. If Republicans lose their attempt at privatizing Social Security, gay activists will be no worse off. Democrats, traditionally advocates for gay rights, have opposed Social Security privatization. While the Log Cabin Republicans have no conflict with their party on this issue, liberal gay activists may face a tough choice. Privatization may inadvertently promote equal rights for gays and lesbians, but it clashes with the traditional liberal belief in providing a strong safety net for the elderly. Democratic gay activists may have to choose between their economic and social agendas. In addition, these activists may risk losing Democratic support on other favourable same-sex legislation. Regardless of where gay activists stand on the political spectrum, benefits for same-sex couples should be part of the debate on Social Security privatization. Because the issue of such benefits in Social Security privatization places Democrats and Republicans at odds with their typical constituencies, only gay activists can begin the honest discussion. This dialogue should come out of the closet. Andrew Lee (Alee07@mckenna.edu) is an undergraduate student in government at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California. In other news, I’ve updated the Life @ CMC page. Have a great Spring break everyone.