BlogHer - It's Pride Month -- where do the candidates stand on laws affecting GLBT Americans? - Comments

Where's the...

nelle2nelle — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:46:02 -0500

lack of balance?

When Massachusetts turned on the lights for same sex marriage, and Gavin Newsom brought San Franciscans his version of Prague Spring, there was momentum for change. Nerws coverage was showing regular looking people getting married to someone of the same sex. They looked just like anyone else, no horns, no feather boas, they weren't jumping each other's bones on the street. We met Del Martin and Phyllis Lyons, who met the year before I was born - and you know that was a lonnnnnnnnnnng time ago.

And then came Barney flipping Frank. Just as he did a year ago with the legislation on discrimination and selling tg folk under the bus, Barney had to go shoot his mouth off publicly about how this all was harming progress on rights.

Pfffffffffffffffffffftttttttt... the air came out of that balloon, you could feel it, you could sense it.

Maybe it was too much too quick, but what an incredibly inopportune time for him to turn tail and run. I lost respect for him on that day, and he lost the rest of it last fall.

People will hem and haw on same sex marriage. There will be those who will never budge... but when it comes to the same protections, law that would prevent this sort of ugly incident from happening would be quite likely to pass. It shouldn't be shoved under a rug and a chair placed over it as we entertain for votes. What's the big lump in the rug?

That's what has been happening, exactly what Democrats have done. They create The Big Lump In The Rug, they try to pretend it isn't there, and when their guests are otherwise preoccupied, they whisper 'don't worry, we've got you covered' to the rug.

nelle

There's your idealism showing again

Denise — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 06:18:17 -0500

Darn, and here I'd begun to think you were finding a balance. Heh. You are looking through those rose colored glasses again, my friend.

What leads you to believe "People are sufficiently discerning and intelligent as to see a subset of the immigration issue,"?
None of the current candidates for president will go out on the limb on this issue.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

Obviously I disagree

nelle2nelle — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 05:57:32 -0500

People are sufficiently discerning and intelligent as to see a subset of the immigration issue, one that is a technicality, albeit a significant one. The issue exists, it is harming people in real time, and Americans would relate to families which if hetero would have no issue, but if gay they do.

I give them more credit for being able to see the problem, which is why I believe they should face it down, not run. Running makes them look like they are trying to pull something sneaky.

nelle

Don't lump GLBT in with Immigration

Denise — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 05:31:45 -0500

This is our problem - we're so busy trying to get people to see what's fair that we use an already flawed system to be for equal rights.

Linking ourselves with immigration is a horrible idea. Even many of the most LIBERAL of CONSERVATIVES will balk on gay rights when you start talking about how all of these immigrants will come in when gay marriage is legal. Bad, bad, bad idea.

Immigration is a huge issue (nelle, look at our very conservative SC friend and her home depot rant...), don't link glbt rights to it or you may never get them.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

He is? Really? How so?

Denise — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 05:28:09 -0500

my argument would be that I’m ahead of the curve on these issues compared to 99% of most elected officials around the country on this issue. So I think I’ve shown leadership.

How is he ahead of the curve compared to anyone else? He's shown leadership in this area, how?

It's all talk - from both him and Senator Clinton.

GLBT issues should not be issues in this electio because we do not yet have a liberal candidate who is willing (or able) to be brave or bold. Regardless of what Senator Obama (or Senator Clinton) would like us to believe.

The conservatives concerned about homosexual issues can sleep easy, this election and for a good long while, I think.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

Obama responded to a similar argument

Kim Pearson — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 04:37:03 -0500

In the interview with The Advocate that I linked to, Obama likened the fight for same-sex marriage to the effort to end miscegenation laws in the 1960s. He acknowledged that his parents' marriage was illegal in parts of the US. The interviewer suggested that for that reason, he should be even more vocal about the marriage issue. That led to this exchange:

[The Advocate:] Is it fair for the LGBT community to ask for leadership? In 1963, President Kennedy made civil rights a moral issue for the country.

But he didn’t overturn antimiscegenation. Right?

[The Advocate]: True enough.

As I said, I think the LGBT community has every right to push for what it thinks is right. And I think that it’s absolutely fair to ask me for leadership, and my argument would be that I’m ahead of the curve on these issues compared to 99% of most elected officials around the country on this issue. So I think I’ve shown leadership.

Thank you...

nelle2nelle — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:49:21 -0500

We've come a long way, but right now I wonder if feminists in around say... 1900 felt this way about the right to vote coming to pass. Which basically is while there is progress, not good enough.

IMO, Democrats have hurt themselves by trying to difuse the issue by trying to reassure on marriage whilst simultaneously laying out what they support to us. They appear on LOGO and casually say why they are going to do great things - yet also outline a programme that still leaves us second class citizens.

Had they taken the approach of standing by full rights, and taking the time to explain why, I'd bet more Americans than many think would see that as reasonable and fair. The problem is no one has really taken the time, in a setting where much of the country is paying attention, to explain why this makes sense.

If America knew that a friend's partner, legitimately in this nation, a year or so after they bought a home and a business and a couple of years after adopting, received notice they decided it was time she left, back to Norway.

Now they have to divest of both, in this economic climate.

Would America think that fair, given that a hetero couple could marry and end this? A candidate could make that actual happening an issue that registered.

Usually the best way to deal with a problem is to address it square on, not by dancing around it.

nelle

It's Pride Month -- where do the candidates stand on laws affecting GLBT Americans?

Kim Pearson — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:35:10 -0500

Obviously, the 2008 presidential election will be a watershed moment for the diversity of its candidates. However, it might also be the moment when the political movement among gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people comes of age. The Democratic candidates have promised to support GLBT rights in the workplace, hate crimes laws and the repeal of the "Don't ask, don't tell" rules that keep GLBT members of the military in the closet. Even presumptive Republican nominee John McCain chose to appear on Ellen to explain why he opposes same-sex marriage.

Right after a post thanking voters in Puerto Rico for her victory in the island's Democratic primary, Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign blog has this message commemorating the beginning of GLBT Pride month:

As we begin Gay Pride Month, I join the LGBT community
in celebrating an historic year in which our country continues to make
progress towards the fair and equal treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender Americans. Still, we have so much work to do. I look
forward to working with the LGBT community to make sure that all
Americans in committed relationships have equal benefits and that
nothing stands in the way of loving couples who want to adopt children
in need. We need to expand our federal hate crimes legislation and
pass a fully-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act. And finally,
we need to put an end to the failed policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Courage, honor, patriotism and sacrifice – the traits that define our
men and women in uniform – have nothing to do with sexual orientation....

Sen. Barack Obama's blog has an announcement of events organized by GLBT Obama supporters, and links to interviews and statements from Obama on GLBT issues. The most interesting is an April, 2008 chat with the prominent gay magazine, The Advocate, in which Obama presented himself as a friend of the GLBT community, but said that as President, he would have to be realistic about what he could do to enact laws that many activists believe are essential to full equality. Here's part of the exchange:

[The Advocate:] I think the underlying fear of the gay community is
that if you get into office, will LGBT folks be
last on the priority list?

Obama: I guess my point
would be that the fact that I’m raising issues
accordant to the LGBT community in a general audience
rather than just treating you like a special interest
that is sort of off in its own little box -- that, I
think, is more indicative of my commitment. Because
ultimately what that shows is that I’m not
afraid to advocate on your behalf outside of church,
so to speak. It’s easy to preach to the choir; what I
think is harder is to speak to a broader audience
about why these issues are important to all
Americans....

Like Clinton, Obama supports civil unions, an end to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and protections against employment discrimination that include transgendered workers. Obama favors the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, while Clinton would only repeal portions of it.

While McCain is presenting himself as a social conservative who opposes many of the legal protections sought by the GLBT community, he took some flak earlier this year for being willing to meet with leaders of the Log Cabin Republicans. But Pam Spaulding, blogging at Pandagon, reminded readers that McCain is no friend of gay rights:

Remember, McCain is the tool who sent a letter to [the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network] calling gays an 'intolerable risk to morale, cohesion and discipline.'

Mr. Straight Talk’s campaign also said that he has no intention of asking to “soften” the Republican party’s platform on same-sex marriage to appeal to more voters.

The Arizona senator has not denounced the over-the-top homophobia of his buddy, Patriot Pastor Rod Parsley...."

Writing for the Huffington Post, SLDN's Aubrey Sarvis predicts recent court decisions, changes in state law, and changing attitudes will force the next president's hand

[W]hat is the Pentagon doing to plan for the day when gays and
lesbians will be serving openly in the armed forces of the United
States? What will happen when a sergeant at Travis Air Force Base, for
example, takes advantage of California law and marries his boyfriend,
then returns to base and demands married couples' housing? We know what
happens today: that's the end of his Air Force career. He's discharged
under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT).

That's the reality, but tomorrow's reality will be different. It's going to happen.

Still, some bloggers worried that the backlash against the California Supreme Court's decision in favor of same-sex marriage might hurt the candidates most sympathetic to GLBT rights. Katestone writes:

I’m thrilled that the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of
marriage equality in that state. I am worried that the issue will move
the Presidential candidates into fractious debates on the Republicans
domestic “axis of evil” — homosexuality, abortion, and activist
judges. If that is the case, gay men and lesbians will once again
have to hear their lives debated negatively and experience the hateful
backlash. As Gore Vidal once said, “homosexuals are the only minority
it is socially acceptable to hate.”

The New York Times reported today that McCain did not mention the
ruling yesterday. He doesn’t want to be dragged into that debate right
now but we can be assured that McCain will mention it when he feels he
needs to whip up the base. Or, he will have his spiritual adviser,
John Hagee, mention it. Over and over and over. And debate monitors,
bereft of ideas and creativity, will mention it. Obama noted the
ruling favorably and moved on. Good for him..."

Finally, at Campaign Diaries, one blogger deduces that Sen. Obama's need to pick a running mate likely to attract Republicans and independents might result in a VP who's not only opposed to GLBT rights, but also to combatting sex discrimination and protecting affirmative action:

"As conversations about McCain's and Obama's choices are picking-up, a
certain number of people from both parties are worried that their
nominee might select a running mate that is too far from the party's
base. After all, a vice-president is not only a heartbeat away from the
presidency, but he also becomes the favorite to become the party's next
candidate. While the Right is worrying about McCain choosing Charlie
Crist and Tom Ridge, the Left's worst-case scenario is even more
nightmarish..."