How the Myth of the Democratic Party Being Better for Gay Rights Began

A new study published by The American Political Review and Cambridge University examines how the formation of a lesbian and gay electoral constituency as a case, this article demonstrates how activists and party elites contest and construct collective identities and groups. It suggests that the conventional wisdom that aligns the Democratic Party and LGBT rights is in fact a myth and an identity formed in the crucible of the American political system.

In the lesbian and gay case, scholars treat the gay-Democratic alliance as a reflection of group interest. Christopher Baylor (Reference Baylor2017), for example, calls the Democratic Party a “better fit” for a lesbian and gay constituency, even though lesbian and gay people might think about their sexuality in civil libertarian terms (206). David Karol (Reference Karol2012, 8) explains party change on gay rights as an outcome of overtly partisan activism. Scholars have also examined whether gay men and lesbians are a captured group in the party system, reaching varying conclusions (Bishin and Smith Reference Bishin and Smith2013; Frymer Reference Frymer1999; McThomas and Buchanan Reference McThomas and Buchanan2012; Smith Reference Smith and Sarat2007). Recent work finds that conversion and replacement in Congress explain inaction on gay rights (Bishin, Freebourn, and Teten Reference Bishin, Freebourn and Teten2021). Although these studies demonstrate the marginal position of lesbians and gay men in parties, they underappreciate how activists and politicians and party leadership (party actors) constitute identities and group boundaries. This omission is critical because, as I will show, activists were not initially overtly partisan and, when civil rights and libertarian constructions of lesbian and gay politics were affirmed, mobilization was relatively bipartisan. Thus, the party system did not reflect a preformed group’s interests. Activist–party dynamics constituted lesbian and gay identities and group boundaries, as well as who is recognized as a Democrat or a Republican.