Putting Rights Before Party

If Log Cabin Republicans are the moral equivalent of Jewish Nazis, what does that make the Stonewall Democrats?

For years, gay Republicans have taken it on the chin from their homo brethren for allegedly contributing to their own oppression, for too easily accepting crumbs from the GOP table, and for failing to get the hint that they're not even welcome in the kitchen.

And ever since President Bush threw his weight behind amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage, the knives have been out and sharpened for any and all gays who ever dared to affiliate with the GOP.

The sad irony is that all this vicious criticism is undeserved. When it comes to political courage, the Log Cabin track record this election season easily outstrips that of its Democratic counterparts, and actually outperforms the allegedly non-partisan gay rights groups.

From the day the president announced his support for an amendment, Log Cabin's leaders have thrown almost all their energy into thwarting the leader of their own party and even working against his re-election.

Under the direction of Patrick Guerriero, a former Massachusetts legislator, Log Cabin launched a national ad campaign against the amendment effort, protested outside the Republican convention, and accepted dozens of invitations to appear on national television criticizing the president and the GOP leadership in Congress.

Guerriero penned a column that argued against Bush's re-election, and then Log Cabin broadened the battlefield, announcing it would file suit challenging the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" restrictions on gays in the military.

If you shrug all that off as exactly what a gay rights group ought to be doing, then your inclination is right even if your conclusion isn't.

In fact, Log Cabin is the only national gay rights group in this critical election year that has consistently taken issue with its own friends and allies in defense of our civil rights.

It's almost unfair to compare Log Cabin with the Stonewall Democrats, its supposed partisan counterpart. Judging by their respective behavior, they're not even in the same category.

Log Cabin has proven its mettle this year as a gay rights group that lobbies the Republican Party. The Stonewall Democrats, on the other hand, have acted more like a Democratic group that lobbies (and recruits) gays.

When John Kerry came out in support of an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that would overturn marriage equality in the one state where it exists, the Stonewall Dems were stone cold silent.

When 20 percent of the Democrats in the U.S. House voted in favor of the federal marriage amendment, the Stonewall Dems were stone cold silent.

Instead, the Stonewall Democrats criticized House Republicans - a justified slam but hardly courageous. What about the 36 Democrats who voted against our most basic freedoms?

Where was the arm-twisting from the Democratic leadership? Dick Gephardt, the top House Democrat, has a gay daughter, but it was his counterpart, Tom DeLay of Texas, who was out front on marriage equality, albeit on the other side.

There's no excuse for Stonewall's silence. The party's platform is committed to gay rights and opposes the marriage amendment. Gays are a critically important fund-raising and voting bloc.

Stonewall ought to call non-supportive Democrats to task for failing to support their platform and betraying an important constituency.

The supposedly non-partisan national gay groups are no better. Like Log Cabin, the Human Rights Campaign has a former Massachusetts legislator as its new leader. But Cheryl Jacques still acts like she takes her orders from the Democratic whip.

For example, when Dick Cheney ducked a question during the vice presidential debate about rising HIV infection rates among African-American women, Jacques issued a statement calling his ignorance on the topic "inexcusable." And it was.

But what Jacques failed to see, through her partisan-colored glasses, was that John Edwards was every bit as neglectful in his response, spending his entire answer talking about unrelated issues and health care in general.

It used to be that the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force could at least be counted on to take both parties to task on our behalf. Matt Foreman, its leader, vowed to the New York Times that gay groups would never back a candidate who supports writing anti-gay discrimination into a constitution state or federal.

When John Kerry did exactly that, the Task Force to its credit did release a statement taking him to task. But less than four months later, the Task Force was lauding the Democratic nominees as "the most gay-supportive presidential ticket in American history."

The gay rights movement is easily the most compliant political lobby in this country. Our opponents readily criticize their own allies when they cross their interests or don't push their agenda.

Gay groups smile and say, "We understand. Of course supporting our rights is too unpopular to justify politically."

Perhaps if John Kerry is elected, and like Bill Clinton betrays his pro-gay rhetoric, these groups will understand the lesson that Log Cabin has learned in the last four years.

There will always be an excuse why now is not the time to fulfill our promise of equality. It will never be politically expedient.

And politicians will never do what they have not been lobbied to do.

Lesbian Obsession.

"Kerry and Edwards are becoming more obsessed with Mary Cheney than Pat Robertson is with bestiality," observes Gay Patriot, while Mickey Kaus speculates "it's a poll-tested attempt to cost Bush and Cheney the votes of demographic groups (like Reagan Dems, or fundamentalists) who are hostile to homosexuality or gay culture." Suspicious, isn't he.

As Lynne Cheney fumes over Kerry's "cheap and tawdry political trick," Elizabeth Edwards accuses her of being ashamed of Mary (who, by the way, if you didn't happen to know out there is undecided blue collar and soccer mom land, is A LESBIAN.

Pick Your Reactionaries.

Many Democrats may be total reactionaries when it comes to defending set-in-stone New Deal/Great Society centralized government programs and declaring "No reform yesterday, no reform today, no reform tomorrow" -- just more spending down the bureaucratic rat holes to create even more anti-market, big government "solutions" that will keep the apparachiks fully employed. But too many Republicans are total reactionaries when it comes to social issues and cultural matters, especially "topic G." A brief sample from current U.S. Senate and House campaigns (many via www.politics1.com):

Rep. Tom Coburn (the GOP Senate candidate in Oklahoma): "[L]esbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that's happened to us?"

Rep. Jim DeMint (the GOP Senate candidate in South Carolina): "If a person wants to be publicly gay, they should not be teaching in the public schools."

Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas): "Marriage is a privilege the State should protect, but it is not a right for same-sex partners, multiple partners, or any configuration of people and animals that express love for one another."

Mel Martinez (the GOP Senate candidate in Florida): Blasted his primary opponent as "anti-family" and "the new darling of the homosexual extremists" because he supported a hate crimes bill that included gays.

And there's much more of the same. Worse, gays are in a Catch-22 when it comes to the GOP -- because so few gays support Republicans, the party feels no need to concern itself about gay opinion, especially at the risk of alienating its social conservative base.

If the GOP loses the White House and even the Senate, that strategy could be bankrupt. Of course, the economy will probably tank as we have four years of Carter/Mondale redux, but that's the choice we face. Hail the two-party duopoly!

Double-Talk in the Presidential Campaign

Every public discussion of gay issues in America is packed with ambiguity, nuance, and double meaning. This is an egalitarian and liberty-loving country with strong religious faith: Majorities oppose anti-gay discrimination in employment and in the military, but also oppose gay marriage and still believe that homosexual acts are immoral. While most people are comfortable having a gay co-worker, they'd never want a son or daughter to be gay.

The presidential campaign has reflected, and the candidates have manipulated, the country's deep ambivalence about homosexuality.

The Bush Bypass

George W. Bush has developed a stock response to almost any gay-related question. It involves both substantively opposing gay equality and rhetorically reassuring everyone he's not a bigot, all without ever using the word "gay."

Consider Bush's various statements on gay marriage over the past year. Collected and condensed, they amount to this:

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Activist judges and local officials are trying to change this definition, so we must protect marriage. But as we debate this, let's treat everyone with dignity and respect."

The man-and-woman mantra of the first sentence enjoys 70 percent support in elections, but especially appeals to religious conservatives. The second sentence exploits populist resentment of the judiciary. The third, Bush's dignity-and-respect mantra, pivots to reassure gays and their friends and families that Bush doesn't hate gay people.

No matter what the question, Bush almost never actually uses the word gay. (He never uses the word homosexual, either. It is too clinical and old-fashioned for some, too explicit for others.) A substantial part of his political-religious base rejects the idea that there are, properly speaking, "gay people" or homosexuals. For them, the words homosexual or gay are adjectives, not nouns. They describe an act, not a person.

Any time the subject comes up, Bush wants gays and gay-friendly people to interpret his words as a humanitarian concession without having religious conservatives interpret them as any kind of political concession. It is a nice rhetorical trick that plays on the hopes and fears of everyone.

The Kerry Cutoff

John Kerry has a different challenge but plays similar rhetorical tricks. While he has a long Senate record of supporting gay equality, he never mentions gay issues in his presidential campaign unless asked about them.

Even when asked, his answers have gotten increasingly Delphic. His stock response on gay issues now involves confirming he supports liberty while reassuring us he's not for license.

So while he supported letting gays serve in the military during the Democratic primaries, Kerry has since voiced concerns about "unit cohesion" and morale. These are code words for opposing gays in the military.

On gay marriage, Kerry always deploys the man-and-woman mantra. (See above.) Asked to defend his position, he invokes his "religious" convictions. That's a nod to religious conservatives.

When Missouri passed a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriages - before a single judge there had ordered the state to recognize such marriages - Kerry told the mainstream media he had "no problem" with the amendment. Advised later by a gay reporter that the amendment also banned civil unions, Kerry said he opposed it. Informed still later that the amendment did not in fact ban civil unions, his campaign said he had no position.

So, as Kerry might put it, he actually did support the amendment before he opposed it before he was neutral.

The Edwards Exposè

Most richly ambiguous of all was the performance of John Edwards in the vice presidential debate. Asked about gay marriage, Edwards peppered his response with the man-and-woman mantra no fewer than three times while declaring his opposition to a constitutional amendment and his support for largely unspecified "benefits" for gay couples.

And here is how Edwards began his answer:

"Let me first say that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy."

Highlighting the homosexuality of an opponent's child is a very odd way to begin an answer. While the moderator's question itself had vaguely referred to Cheney's "family experience," nothing in it stated that Cheney's daughter is gay. Edwards must have known that his own comments would be the first time millions of people would hear about it. Why would he introduce this fact into a nationally televised debate?

To many listeners, Edwards' answer humanized the gay-marriage issue by calling attention to the effect that denying marriage has on the lives of actual people. It also affirmed the morality of loving one's own children, gay or not. That message needs to be heard by families who have rejected gay children.

But learning of Cheney's gay daughter likely had a very different effect on some of Bush's conservative supporters. It suggested that the administration might not be as trustworthy on gay issues as they had thought. After all, Edwards just told them that the Cheney half of the Bush-Cheney ticket has been infiltrated by the enemy.

Did Edwards intend to produce that homophobic but politically useful effect? He predictably denies any double-meaning. Such is the complexity of talk about gay issues in this country that we can't be sure.

[Editor's note: The above was penned shortly before the final Bush-Kerry debate in which Kerry similarly raised the issue of Mary Cheney's sexuality, about which the author comments in a subsequent column.]

Equal Time.

Carolyn Lochhead, an IGF contributing author, has penned a thoughtful piece for the San Francisco Chronicle on the betrayal felt by gay Republicans over President Bush's support of the marriage amendment. She pays particular attention to the Austin 12, a group of gay Republicans who met with then-Gov. Bush in 2000 during his campaign. Below are quotes from four of them, pulled from the article:

David Catania, a District of Columbia Councilmember: "My heart has left the party, my head has left the party. The party as it is now is not one I can support."

Rebecca Maestri, former aide to Sen. Al D'Amato: "I believe in the principles of the Republican Party, and I won't be railroaded out of the party just because of my sexual orientation."

David Daniel Stewart, mayor of Plattsburgh, N.Y.: "I can't support George Bush anymore. I have just had it. He hit my soul, he hit my heart. I'm not going to stand there and violate my own conscience to help get someone elected."

Brian Bennett, who came out while chief of staff to anti-gay former Rep. Bob Dornan: "Why should we abandon Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, Arnold Schwarzenegger and other leaders who are in the party taking heat for standing up for gays and lesbians? They have the courage to stand up for me in my party. What good would I be for them, who are in some ways jeopardizing their political futures by standing up for me, if I cut and run?"

At least one of the 12 is on record saying he'll still vote for Bush (former AIDS czar Scott Evertz). Others, including Stewart, said they can't support either candidate. But Catania has switched his party affiliation to "independent" and endorsed Kerry/Edwards.

More Recent Postings
10/3/04 - 10/9/04

Spin or Deceit?

Responding to the veep debate, Human Rights Campaign head Cheryl Jacques castigates Dick Cheney for his views on AIDS. As an HRC news release puts it:

"Vice President Cheney's ignorance about the HIV/AIDS crisis is inexcusable," said Jacques. "When asked about the effect this epidemic is having on Americans - especially communities of color - he said he was unaware of the problem."

But a new letter posted in our mailbag ("HRC: Beyond Spinning Lies Deceit," Oct. 8) begs to differ:

Cheney's answer did not show ignorance of HIV issues. He didn't know that black women between the ages of 25 and 44 are 13 times more likely to die of AIDS than "their counterparts." I follow issues of HIV and AIDS and although I am aware that HIV infection rates have significantly increased as a percentage among black women, I was unaware of that exact statistic. In fact, I'm still not sure what the moderator meant by "their counterparts"; I don't know if she meant other races, other ages, men, the general population or just what. Neither did Cheney.

Frankly, neither candidate answered the question well with...Edwards being less forthcoming on the answer than Cheney. So [Jacques' statement] goes beyond spinning to outright deceit.

Of course, the "racist, sexist, anti-gay" mantra is the prism through which the left views all things Republican. So instead of building on Cheney's break with Bush over the marriage amendment and celebrating that his daughter, Mary, appeared on stage with her lesbian partner after the debate - and the positive signal this sent - HRC instead attacks Cheney by distorting his response. Along with their decision to oppose the re-election of moderate, pro-gay GOP Sen. Arlen Specter of Penn., Jacques and HRC are telling Republicans no matter what they do, they will be vilified. What a great way to advance the cause of gay legal equality with a Congress that's likely to have a GOP majority even if their beloved Kerry wins the White House.

The Great Gay Hope.

Thus speaks John Kerry, as quoted in Thursday's New York Times:

"The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position. But they're out there misleading people and exploiting it."

And who would be misleading people so nefariously, the great right-wing conspiracy? How about the gay left-wing claque.

Sure, if Kerry wins we may get four years of vacillation and appeasement abroad, higher taxes and blocked entitlement reform at home, with Carter-era economic growth thanks to jacked-up minimum wage levels and an onslaught of anti-business regulation, trade tariffs and approval of the Kyoto protocols. While endorsing marriage-banning state constitutional amendments and leaving in place the military's don't ask/don't tell gay ban in deference to "unit cohesion," Kerry will appoint some lesbigay Democratic hacks to mid-level bureaucratic positions and send press releases to the gay media each June recognizing pride month. Happy Days Are Here Again!

OK, that's the worst-case scenario. My colleague Paul Varnell's recently posted column provides a more nuanced view of a Kerry victory (which I see as the likely election outcome).

Color Blind.

The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force co-sponsored a new study showing that black lesbian couples are raising children at almost the same rate as black married couples, and that black same-sex couples raise children at twice the rate of white same-sex couples. The Task Force concludes that "Black same-sex couples have more to gain from the legal protections of marriage, and more to lose if states pass amendments banning marriage and other forms of partner recognition."

Fair enough, but being the Task Force, they add:

"These facts underscore the hypocrisy and wrong-headedness of the Bush Administration's aggressive attempts to deprive same sex couples equal marriage rights while touting its multi-million dollar 'African-American Healthy Marriage Initiative' as a way to strengthen the African American family," said Matt Foreman, the Task Force's Executive Director. "This report clearly shows that denying the protections that come with marriage disproportionately hurts...gay and lesbian African American couples....

Yep, blacks suffer "disproportionately," of course. And while it's fair enough to castigate Bush over the federal marriage amendment, what about Kerry's support for state marriage amendments -- the current threat. Also, the Task Force makes no mention of the devastating breakdown of straight black marriage that their study reveals (because if they did, they couldn't attack Bush for trying to address that problem and hit him on both fronts).

Something else the Task Force doesn't mention: the marriage amendment received a higher percentage of votes in the House from black Democrats than from Democrats as a whole.

Of the 36 Democrats who voted for the anti-gay amendment, 7 were members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., a rising star in the party and one of John Kerry's earliest backers in Congress. (Of the 158 Democrats voting against the amendment, 25 were black caucus members, a somewhat smaller percentage). Which, ahem, seems to suggest some "disproportionate" homophobia among black Democrats.

Engaging the Enemy.

Jonathan Rauch has an interesting debate with David Blankenhorn, a pro-fatherhood, pro-family advocate over at the website Familyscholars.org (Jonathan's latest posting has links back to earlier installments). The discussion focuses on federalism and why honest conservatives should support letting states decide their own marriage laws.

Edwards, Cheney — and Mary.

I'm not the only one who viscerally felt that John Edwards' raising the issue of Mary Cheney during the vice presidential debate had the feel of a sting. Said Edwards in response to a question about gay marriage (which Cheney had answered without mentioning his daughter):

let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing.

As blogger Mickey Kaus of Slate's Kausfiles put it, "I got the heebie jeebies when [Edwards] smarmily praised Cheney for having a gay daughter." My interpretation: Hello, socially conservative-leaning independents. Did you know about this.

Addendum: The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto agrees. From his Wednesday OpinionJournal.com debate analysis:

At present, a vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage; when it comes up to a statewide vote--whether in a red state or blue--voters typically reject it by majorities ranging from 60% to 80%. This means there are a lot of Democrats who...belong to their party despite its views on social issues.

We don't agree with the gay-rights crowd that "bigotry" is behind all opposition to same-sex marriage, but there's no doubt that some opponents harbor antigay prejudice. Were these the voters John Edwards was addressing when he brought Cheney's daughter into the debate?