First published on October 6, 2004, in the Chicago Free
Press.
As of early October when this is written there seems little
reason to alter my early July prediction that President George W.
Bush will win reelection. If Senator John Kerry wins, I will not be
unhappy - or no unhappier than if Bush wins - but I will be
surprised.
Still, there is no harm in thinking about what a Kerry victory
might mean for gays and lesbians. This is not to say there are not
other issues than gay ones, even issues that may be more decisive
for many gay voters. But other writers have discussed those
elsewhere.
There seems little doubt that a Kerry victory, unlike a Bush
victory, would tend to facilitate legal and social equality for
gays and lesbians. Tend to facilitate; not
provide. Both the Kerry campaign and its auxiliaries at the Human
Rights Campaign have exaggerated the positive impact of a Kerry
victory, unduly raising expectations, but it is true nonetheless,
if to a lesser degree.
Kerry announced his opposition to the Federal Marriage
Amendment, though he avoided the Senate vote on it. (He might say:
"I was against it before I didn't vote against it.") So a Kerry
victory would remove one strong source of arm-twisting advocacy
when it is proposed in the next Congress. With a Kerry
administration, because of any president's ability to buy and trade
favors, that is an issue we would have help fighting and the
amendment would likely lose by more than last time.
Kerry's support for state constitutional amendments barring gay
marriage, as in Massachusetts, is troubling. Presumably he takes
that position to balance his opposition to the federal
constitutional ban. (He might say: "I favor denying rights at the
state level, not the federal level.") But Kerry need not have taken
that position.
Even if he did not feel he could safely oppose state amendments,
he could have finessed the issue by saying, "I think we should
leave that issue up to voters. I trust the voters, don't you?" Gays
may believe that the right to marry should not be left up
to voters, but Kerry's saying so would have been better than
supporting state amendments.
Still, leaving the issue up to states allows gays a chance for
eventual victories in a few states and the possibility of
state-based gay marriage "demonstration projects." In any case, it
will be easier in the future to repeal state constitutional bans
than it would be to repeal a U.S. constitutional amendment.
But marriage is not the only gay issue. Despite his opposition
to gay marriage, Kerry says he supports civil unions such as exist
in Vermont and may be approved in Massachusetts. That suggests that
a Kerry administration would support domestic partner benefits for
federal employees and might provide mild encouragement to states to
pass civil union laws.
Although Kerry has made troubling comments about "unit
cohesion," he seems to support repeal of the military's ban on gay
personnel. His administration could press Congress to repeal the
ban, urge the military to redefine sodomy as forced sex rather than
specific acts, signal courts that overturning the ban would not be
resisted and publicly defend ending the ban as a wartime
necessity.
The administration would support enhanced hate crimes laws and
gay-inclusive non-discrimination laws. Even if those laws do not
pass, public statements supporting them by a President Kerry and
administration officials could promote more favorable public
attitudes toward gays. There would be more support for candid and
less-moralistic AIDS education. The prudish moralist Attorney
General John Ashcroft would be excreted.
Many gay issues from gay marriage to the military's gay ban are
already or will be taken up by the federal courts and we would
doubtless get a friendlier hearing from federal and Supreme Court
judges appointed by Kerry than ones appointed by Bush. Although
Kerry appointees would not inevitably be pro-gay nor Bush's
inevitably anti-gay, Kerry is less likely than Bush to appoint
another Scalia or Rehnquist.
The problems with all rosy scenarios of gay progress under Kerry
are twofold. One is, despite Kerry's relatively friendly attitude,
his seeming lack of zeal on gay issues. The other, more important,
is that both the House and Senate are likely to remain in
Republican hands. Even if Democrats regained the Senate, the House
is virtually certain to remain Republican, blocking most
gay-friendly legislation.
But the chief effect of a Kerry victory would be less a matter
of passing legislation than of changing the tone of public
discourse about gays and lesbians. A Kerry administration would
foster a friendlier political/social climate for us to continue our
advocacy efforts. That is no small gain. We can achieve progress in
public understanding more easily if our own government is not
fighting us.
The other thing a Kerry victory would do is force the Republican
party to reassess its Karl Rovian strategy of viewing Christian
evangelicals as its electoral base and bending all efforts to
increase their voter turnout by promoting religion and moralism and
treating gays as a toxic element in the body politic.