Who's better for gay equality, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?
The answer depends on a consideration of three main factors: the
issues, actual legislative records, and likely commitment.
On the issues, both Clinton and Obama broadly support equality
for gay Americans. Both support a hate crimes law, the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act, a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT),
and same-sex domestic-partners benefits for federal employees. Both
oppose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
There's only one difference between them on gay issues. Clinton
supports repeal of the section of the Defense of Marriage (DOMA)
that bars federal benefits for same-sex couples who get married or
enter civil unions in their own state. Prohibiting as it does the
federal legal protections that would otherwise be available to tens
of thousands of gay families in several states, repealing this
section of DOMA is a top priority.
Obama goes one step further. He would repeal DOMA in its
entirety, including the section of the law that authorizes states
to refuse to recognize gay marriages and civil unions performed
elsewhere.
While this sounds important, its practical effect is minimal.
Even without DOMA, states may refuse to recognize gay marriages
from other states. All but five have done so. Still, the interstate
provision in DOMA discriminates against gay couples and should be
repealed.
Clinton defends her position by saying that DOMA was a valuable
political tool in defeating a federal constitutional amendment
banning gay marriage. That's doubtful. She even goes so far as to
say that DOMA was originally passed as a way to head off a federal
amendment. That's dishonest. When her husband championed DOMA in
1996 it was not as a favor to gays, but as a way to maximize his
chances for reelection.
On the issues: slight advantage to Obama.
A candidate's positions on the issues matter little if they
aren't translated into legislative action. Legislative success
depends, in turn, on actual legislative ability and commitment to
the cause.
On legislative ability, we don't have much of a record for
either candidate. Obama has been an undistinguished first-term
senator, neither more nor less impressive than most others in a
legislative body where seniority is power.
In an open letter to gays issued shortly before the Texas
primary, Obama touted his co-sponsorship of legislation banning
anti-gay discrimination when he served as an Illinois state
senator. He also mentioned his co-sponsorship of a couple of
pro-gay bills in the U.S. Senate.
Yet co-sponsoring bills involves nothing more than formally
declaring support for them; it's not a test of legislative skill.
What matters is lobbying colleagues for the bill, securing hearings
on the need for it, compromising and horse-trading, and getting an
actual vote.
GOP support will be needed in the Senate to overcome filibusters
of pro-gay legislation. While Obama talks a good game of bringing
Republicans and Democrats together for positive change, his actual
legislative record demonstrates little ability to do so. That might
change when he becomes president, and a president's role is
different than a legislator's, but so far we have little to go on
other than hope.
Clinton's legislative record is somewhat more impressive. She
has surprised and delighted her Republican colleagues with her
bipartisanship and work ethic.
On legislative record: slight advantage to Clinton.
Finally, which of the two is likely to be more committed to gay
equality as president? Commitment is critical. Recall that Bill
Clinton came into the presidency with all the right stands on gay
issues for a man of his time. He also had an impressive record of
legislative accomplishment as a governor. The problem was that he
utterly lacked commitment to gay equality, wilting at the first
sign of resistance. As Melissa Etheridge put it at a Democratic
debate last year, he threw gays under the bus.
Neither Obama nor Clinton is perfect on this score. Obama
campaigned last fall with a homophobic minister. Both hesitated
when confronted with the remarks of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman
Gen. Peter Pace that DADT is justified because homosexuality is
immoral. As if testing the political winds, they denounced Pace
only after Sen. John Warner (R-VA) flatly declared that
homosexuality is not immoral.
Nevertheless, Obama speaks movingly of gay equality, and not
just before gay audiences. He has raised the issue among white
farmers and in black churches, where the message is both unwelcome
and needed.
Hillary Clinton, by contrast, rarely raises the issue on her
own, never does so before unfriendly audiences, and seems reluctant
even to say the word "gay."
Obama "gets it" in a way that no previous candidate for
president has. Part of this is generational, but it is nonetheless
real.
On commitment: strong advantage to Obama.
Lyndon Johnson changed forever the tone of the debate over
racial equality when he told the nation, "We shall overcome." Gay
Americans need a transformative moment like that. Obama understands
the importance of using the "bully pulpit" of the presidency to be
a moral leader as well as a legislative one.
That's no guarantee he'll be a great president for gay equality.
On the biggest issues, like repealing DADT and DOMA, it's doubtful
any Democratic president will succeed in a first or even second
term. Obama may prove just as cowardly, weak, and perfidious as
that previous Clinton.
And gay issues are by no means the only ones that matter in this
election. But on gay equality, Obama's the better bet.
