"There is very much a stifling effect here at the convention," observed Carole Migden, an openly gay California Board of Equalization member and 2004 Democratic National Convention delegate. "But there is an implicit feeling that there is widespread support for our issues that goes unspoken."
What to make of the Boston Democrats? They really like gay people, but they'd really rather the American public didn't know that. And what of gay Democrats? They're high-minded idealists when they criticize gay Republicans for working within a party that doesn't much like gays; but they're sober-minded pragmatists when assessing their own party's treatment of gays. Yes, they acknowledge, the Boston convention was a retreat from gay visibility at past conventions. But, they quickly add, that's necessary to defeat the evil Republicans.
The contrast to the three previous Democratic conventions was remarkable. In 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton actually used the word "gay" in his convention speeches. In his 2000 acceptance speech, Al Gore specifically endorsed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and hate crimes legislation. In 1996 and 2000, rainbow flags were clearly visible in the convention hall, waving in front of the TV cameras during prime-time speeches.
This year, no rainbow flags on the convention floor in prime time. There were six openly gay speakers, which is good and certainly better than what we'll get at the Republican convention. But none of them appeared during the hours when Americans would actually see them. If you're not heard in prime time, do you make a sound?
I heard "gay" mentioned exactly once in four nights of prime-time coverage. If you didn't know better, and confined your convention-watching to the 8-11 p.m. time slot, you wouldn't have known gays even exist.
Most striking was the complete omission of anything gay in the acceptance speeches of John Edwards and John Kerry. Neither man mentioned gay Americans or gay-related legislation. There was no promise to do anything about lifting the ban on gays in the military, no pledge to work for legislation to protect gay people from employment discrimination or from hate crimes, not a word about lifting the ban on HIV-positive immigrants (a ban Kerry voted for), not one syllable devoted to the recognition of civil unions.
Kerry announced his obligatory respect for diversity in language so general President Bush himself could have used it. He also tried to undermine Republican moralism by claiming to support "family values," which for Democrats means raising taxes to pay for social programs and government-controlled health care.
Then there was Kerry's promise not to "misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States." This passage caused much mirth among gay Democrats, who clung to it as possibly a reference to the Bush-supported Federal Marriage Amendment. That's certainly a reasonable interpretation, and no doubt it's what Kerry wanted gay Americans to understand it to mean.
But, in context, it was oblique. To the casual listener, who heard Kerry denounce Attorney General John Ashcroft, it could have been understood as a critique of the Bush administration's overall record on civil liberties. And, since neither Kerry nor Edwards could be bothered to show up to actually vote against the FMA, why give them the benefit of the interpretive doubt?
It's true the 2004 Democratic platform mentions a few of these things, and that's nice. It's also true that Kerry and Edwards announced gay-supportive positions on these matters during the Democratic primaries, and that's even nicer. But in the months since he secured the Democratic nomination, Kerry has hardly mentioned gay Americans or his supportive stands on gay issues.
To many gay Democrats, none of this matters. Typical was the reaction of D.C. delegate and longtime gay activist Phil Pannell, as quoted in the Washington Blade: "The times are different now from what they were when Clinton and Gore gave their speeches. People who typically would be mad about certain policies or certain omissions in speeches are so determined to defeat Bush that they are willing to not let that bother them."
But it does matter. If Kerry shies away from gay issues now, Republicans will justifiably argue that he has no mandate on them once he's elected.
And if fear of political consequences is enough to silence Kerry and the Democrats now, the same reasons will be used to justify their silence later. Before he's elected, we are told, candidate Kerry must do nothing substantive on gay rights so he can get elected. In 2005 and 2006, we will be told, President Kerry must do nothing substantive on gay issues so the Democrats can win the 2006 congressional election. In 2007 and 2008, we will hear, Kerry must do nothing substantive on gay issues so he can be re-elected. And so on.
What I see developing with the Kerry/Edwards no-show at the FMA vote, with the failure of Kerry and Edwards to discuss any gay-related issue since the primaries, with the relative invisibility of "gay" at the Democratic convention, and now with the gearing up of the old excuse factory for them, is a replay of those halcyon years that gave us "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act.
But, bless his heart, Kerry does have an implicit feeling for us that goes unspoken. He is promising us nothing and it's starting to look like that's just what he'll deliver.