I have always voted for Democrats. This means that for much of my voting life, I’ve been voting for people who did not support my right to marry or adopt a child or to be protected from discrimination.
Granted, I was voting against people who were very vocal about seeing me as a pervert hellbent on destroying the “traditional family.”
So the choice wasn’t hard. But it sure wasn’t gratifying. I believed that Democrats would eventually come around and start supporting my civil rights. Because I had to. There was no chance that the Republicans were going to.
But I also didn’t feel like Democrats were really fighting for me. Tolerating me, perhaps. But even Democrats who supported, say, my right to marry did so privately, lest saying it aloud would lose them votes.
Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm comes to mind. In 2004, there was a ballot measure to amend the Michigan constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Granholm barely said a word about it. Voters ultimately passed it by a wide margin.
Now, I know that voters didn’t vote against me, personally. But that’s what it felt like. It hurt a lot to know that millions of people (2,698,077 to be exact) chose hurting people like me over not hurting people like me — and that was the choice. It’s not like voting against the amendment would have bestowed upon me any kind of rights or benefits. It would have simply left things as they were.
At that time, I interviewed a couple for a story about second-parent adoption. At least I think that’s what it was. It was a long time ago.
The women knew Granholm personally. They considered her a friend. They said something about how she had to be politically strategic about the marriage amendment, but they knew where she stood.
I later interviewed Dan Savage. When the subject of the marriage amendments came up (Michigan was not the only state with a ballot measure regarding marriage in 2004), he made a comment about how quiet Granholm was on the issue.
I, an idiot in my 20s, came to Granholm’s defense, assuring him that she opposed the measure. She had gay friends, after all.
His response was, basically, “Who gives a shit?” Who gives a shit what an elected official personally believes if she doesn’t use the power she has to speak out against something like the marriage amendment?
I realized he was right. I then saw Granholm as a coward. I still do.
And now here we are in 2026. Marriage equality isn’t on the ballot (the Supreme Court hasn’t overturned Obergefell v. Hodges yet, though they want to) and most Democrats fully and openly support marriage equality.
But when it comes to the rights of transgender people — not to marry, but just to exist — it feels like 2004 again.
The Republicans have been hammering away at trans rights for years and the Trump administration is the most vocally anti-trans in history. Trump is issuing executive orders with titles like, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” and telling people that kids are having gender-related surgeries while at school.
The list of trans rights that have been taken away or threatened include the right to use public restrooms, the right to serve in the military, the right to be around children (often framed as being anti-drag, but the root of the fight against drag is trans people), the right to play school sports, the right to gender-affirming healthcare and the right to read books that include transgender storylines and characters.
In case you haven’t noticed, all of these things are incredibly personal. These are the kinds of rights you take away when you don’t want a group of people to exist.
And not only are many Democratic candidates and elected officials silent on the issue (aside from a small number who are very vocal in their support of trans people), but they’ve decided that it isn’t wise politically to support trans rights. In fact, they think it’s wise politically to be vocal about how they don’t support trans rights.
And yet there are still people who will tell transgender people that they must vote for Democratic candidates no matter that candidate’s position on trans rights because the alternative is undoubtedly worse. And, yeah, the Republican alternative is worse.
But no Democrat deserves a vote from a single trans person if that candidate sides with Trump and the Republicans on trans issues. Trans people don’t owe Democrats anything. Saying, “If you support measures designed to hurt me and help to dehumanize me, I will not vote for you” isn’t a “purity test.” It’s self-respect.