A message for fellow gay Democrats. . .

[Brian_Expat]

I am confused a bit over the notion of "candidate comfort and discomfort" with gays, because, frankly, I have to say something:

Most Americans (and most Democrats) still feel discomfort about gays.

It's true, we shouldn't beat around the Bush about that simple fact. Today, despite decades of advancement, lots of Americans still fill "queasy" about gays on some level -- independent of outright hate.

Now I understand why, because speaking honestly, heterosexual relationships make me a little uncomfortable as well. The "ick" factor cannot be avoided on either side, unless you're a very unique person.

1) Some candidates for our party have proclaimed full support for gay rights and full acceptance of gays, but have no history of fighting, even half-heartedly, for gay rights.

2) Others have proclaimed "full acceptance" but decided we shouldn't have the same rights under the law that other people have (talk about contradictions).

3) Others have proclaimed "discomfort" but fought in the polls and on the streets for us and equal rights (though some things like marriage are "separate but equal" for the time being and will require a few more years before fully accepted and eliminating the "line").

4) Still others have proclimed "full acceptance" and support out-and-out complete legal equality within existing frameworks for gay people, but have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

Who do you choose on these criteria, and why? Who do you think fits into these molds the best in the party? I choose #3, Dean, because I think he represents the balance between attaining greater freedom and what we can achieve today in equality.

#1 is Bill Clinton when he ran for president, and he ended up doing some bad things like DADT and DOMA because they were politically expedient (just like adopting support fo rgay rights was when they made that decision).

#2 is any Democrat like Al Gore or Dick Gephardt who claims to support equality but signed/supported DOMA.

#3 are the wonderful CMB and Dennis Kucinich. AS is in here, too, but I somewhat question his commitment.

[DU9598]

1. Another catagory

I support Edwards' stance on Gay equality - also General Clark. They are 100% fully committed behind the scenes and 90% supportive on the campaign. I want someone who can win and then advance Gay equality while in office. That is more important to me - especially considering all of the Supreme Court appointments forthcoming - than having someone run who is 100% for Gay equality but loses because of it. That just makes it all worse.

Great discussion topic, thanks!

[Brian_Expat]

4. I am uncomfortable with "behind the scenes" commitment

Because the LCRs told lots of gay people that Bush "behind the scenes" supports his gay friends and that this plus Cheney's lesbian daughter meant he'd be at least as good as Gore.

Because of that line, I want to see real, hard fighting on a major gay issue involving some risk for the candidate before I am comfortable with him. Something like backing gays in the military today (with 79% of Americans favoring it) or backing ENDA (with 67% backing it) aren't all that risky, IMO. That's why every major candidate is now supporting both.

[11 Bravo]

7. Despite what the LCRs may or may not believe

If you are truly waiting for Bush to take any substantive step towards gay rights, I hope you aren't holding your breath. (Because if you are, you will be dead sometime within the next 10 minutes.)

[Brian_Expat]

11. Oh, I completely agree

I am just arguing that support for a Democratic candidate on gay rights had better be stronger than LCR arguments for Bush and Cheney. I want to see some tangible history of taking a stand on gay equality that isn't overwhelmingly supported in the polls, simply because it's the right thing to do.

I'd even settle for pushing for a non-discrimination bill in a state like Texas or Alabama which is opposed to it. ENDA might not be controversial nationally, but it is in those places.

Simply pointing at support for ENDA and ending DADT isn't enough, in my view -- it's like claiming support for women's equality for supporting the EEOC. That's a "safe" position.

[Dookus]

2. I'm a long-time out and proud gay man...

active in politics for well over 20 years. I support Clark.

The fact is, I don't think there will be much of ANY difference between the major candidates on issues affecting gay people. I think they'll do as much as they can within the political framework given them.

[Brian_Expat]

5. Oh, but I disagree

The fact is, I don't think there will be much of ANY difference between the major candidates on issues affecting gay people.

Some candidates will support what's "safe" in the polls, like ENDA and open gays in the military. But what happens if/when the polls change? What if anti-gay swings en vogue again, like it did in the latest polls showing majority support against legal homosexuality as a "backlash" to the SCOTUS Lawrence ruling and the Mass ruling?

People who are supporting ENDA out of a "safe" position will backtrack when they become politically inconvenient (as Clinton did on gays in the military and gay marriage). I want someone who I can count on to fight the tough battles and educate the populace.

[Dookus]

6. fine...

clark has already supported ENDA, and end to Don't Ask Don't Tell, and full equality in unions.

[Brian_Expat]

12. But those aren't controversial stances. . .

. . . they're supported by a majority of Americans.

I like to see history on gay issues too, and Clark falls solidly into my "talks a good game but I am skeptical until I see action" camp. As I mentioned, Dean would too if he wasn't a fighter during the Civil Unions brouhaha.

[Obamarama]

3. Interesting question, Brian....

I agree with you, mostly, which is why I would choose Dean as well. But I would choose him for other lots of other reasons before I would choose him based on his "gay record."

For instance, for the sake of argument if Lieberman was very pro-gay, was in favor of gay marriage, etc... I would still vote for Dean if he had a neutral stance on gay issues. I mean heck...I'm JEWISH and I wouldn't vote for Lieberman. The man is just not electable

I wouldn't vote for a candidate who has a negative record on gay issues, but wouldn't write off a candidate if they had a neutral record on gay issues, either, as long as I could be assured they wouldn't be against gay issues.

I'm confused on Gephardt, though. The man has a gay daughter and yet wouldn't support gay marriage. I suspect he'd rather not jeopardize his political clout than see his daughter have the same rights to marry as he has. Has anyone seen any justification from Gephardt on why he wouldn't support gay marriage?

[Brian_Expat]

9. Degrees of neutrality

If someone is "neutral" on gay issues and had the opportunity to vote on them, voted the "wrong" way, and is now super-pro-gay, I am suspicious at best.

If someone has no record at all on gay issues, was high-ranking in a conservative organization like the military or some social group, and is suddenly Elizabeth Birch's wet dream on paper platform-wise, I am skeptical.

I guess I should have been born in Missouri -- having been raised in the Clinton political culture of "anything goes" from both the Gingrich and Clinton sides, I want a record before I'll trust someone. If Howard Dean hadn't had the civil unions thing in his history, I'd be similarly skeptical with him too.

I'm confused on Gephardt, though.

Gephardt is a "machine pol." His record has shifted on a ton of issues, from pro-to-anti, depending on the political winds. He was once anti-choice, now he's pro-choice. His position on gun control changes back and forth. Etc.

His position on gay issues is no different, IMO, it's just like any other issue he seeks to be on the side of the "majority" on.

What's more unforgivable, in my mind, are the Cheney's treatment of Mary (and her willingness to accept it). When he was in Congress, he refused to talk to her for YEARS. During the election of 2000, Lynne Cheney hopped all over Katie Couric for telling Lynne that Mary is an out lesbian. Lynne claimed that was a "total lie" despite the fact that Mary was in GIRLFRIENDS MAGAZINE, talking about her job at Coors as gay liasion and her long-time girlfriend Heather Poe!

They locked the poor woman in the closet and threw away the key. The whole campaign was about Dick's family this, family that -- with Mary out of the picture and their other daughter with her hetero family paraded around for all to see. You saw Mary and Heather together exactly ONCE -- sitting in the back row at the GOP convention, with Heather completely not mentioned by Cheney (though Mary's spouse was mentioned).

While I am pissed at the Cheneys for their willingness to sell their daughter down the street, I am even more pissed that Mary chose to allow them to do it. Where's your backbone, girl? You're an adult, how DARE you let the Republicans force your parents and YOU to hop in the closet so they can piss on the rest of us?!? :puke:

[cindyw]

8. You left one out.

5)3) Others have been comfortable with gays for years and fought in the polls and on the streets for us and equal rights, but believes we must take a pragmatic approach to gaining the rights of marriage, by finding an approach that will get those rights while insuring exact equal rights.

That person is John Kerry. He has been comfortable, always fought for equal rights (even when Clinton did not) and has a pragmatic plan to make it happen.

Here are some facts:

"Kerry is an original cosponsor of the Hate Crimes Prevention bill, which would extend federal jurisdiction over serious, violent hate crimes. These would include crimes motivated by sexual orientation. Hate crimes rose a disturbing 3.5% from 1999 to 2000.

One of John Kerry’s first acts as a U.S. Senator was to introduce a bill prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  He supports passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and has adopted a nondiscrimination policy for his Congressional offices based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

John Kerry cosponsored the first Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act (CARE) - which represents the largest discretionary federal investment in treating individuals with HIV and AIDS.  Kerry also sponsored the Vaccines for the New Millennium Act, aimed at boosting contributions to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, a non-profit group working to promote development of an HIV vaccine in 2000.  Kerry introduced the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria Act, which would increase the U.S. government’s funding of international HIV/AIDS efforts from approximately $1.7 billion in 2003 to $1.9 billion in 2004. This effort led to the unanimous passage in May 2003 the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria Act of 2003. AIDS activists characterized Kerry as one of Congress’s top leaders on HIV/AIDS policy.

John Kerry believes that same-sex couples should be granted rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need.  He has supported legislation to provide domestic partners of federal employees the benefits available to spouses of federal employees.  He was one of 14 Senators -- and the only one up for reelection in 1996 -- to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

John Kerry opposed the Clinton Administration’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy”.  He was one of a few senators to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee and call on the President to rescind the ban on gay and lesbian service members."

This is the kind of record of a man who WILL fight for the rights of gays and lesbians and go on fighting and winning.

[cindyw]

10. I left out a link

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/glbt/

[Brian_Expat]

14. I didn't leave him out at all. . .

. . . I love John Kerry and his position on things (though I wish he'd stop emphasizing his "opposition" to gay marriage so much). I am originally a "Kerry all the way" guy.

Voting for Kerry is definitely a vote for my third category, which also includes Dean. A vote for Kerry is a solid, well-placed vote, IMO.

Also, don't be afraid to tackle my logic or categories -- I am posting this because I want people to think about my ideas, challenge them, add to them, etc. I think too much talk has been done about platforms in this nomination race, not enough talk has been done about action!

[readmylips]

13. Most Americans feel discomfort, quesy, about W.O.M.E.N...

This is the 21st Century and we still have not elected a woman president. We're behind many other countries, including some third world countries.

We need to stop violating 'human rights' of all people. Maybe we should stop classifying humans into pigeon holes. If you're gay, lesbian, single, married, living-in partnership, cross dresses, whatever. That is non of my damn business. When do I pay your rent or pay for your groceries? You are human first and gender second.

I care when some humans are criminals and they harm other humans. Beyond this, everything else is non of of damn business.

[Brian_Expat]

15. True. . .

. . . but peoples' queasiness about women (if they have it) is quite different from gays. People don't go out of their way to pretend that a woman is a man -- they often do to pretend someone who is obviously gay isn't.

If someone mentions someone else is openly gay to another person, the person being told is often in such denial that (s)he'll argue the point and say "I won't believe it until (s)he says it or shows it!"

Imagine if someone said "Who cares if Roberta has breasts, I won't believe Roberta is a woman until he says or shows it!" :)

[Lefta Dissenter]

16. OK, so I'm not gay,

and at the risk of typing the "some of my best friends are gay" quote, I'll just preface this by saying that I grew up with two parents who fought hard for gay rights (in the 50's - 70's), and we have always had family friends who were gay (some of whom have been like a part of our family for 40 years) - so it never seemed like a big deal to me. My daughter lives with a lesbian couple, though she's straight, and we have another lesbian couple as tenants in a small apartment building we own.

As I read Wes Clark's policies regarding GLBT issues, http://clark04.com/issues/glbt/
http://clark04.com/articles/013/
I think that he states views that make me feel comfortable with the fact that he will help to bring the country closer to the time when it simply isn't an issue.

As a straight person, I have two questions about Clark and his positions.

The first one is to ask what the GLBT 'community' (I hate that implication of mass thinking, but bear with me) would like to see that goes beyond what Clark (and others) have proposed. Is it simply the word "marriage" that is missing? Is there more to it than that? I agree with Clark and others who have said that they think that the "marriage" word should be left to the state/church, but that civil unions should carry all the rights and responsibilities of what I perceive as marriage. But I feel that this applies to both hetero and homosexual couples. What am I missing, if anything, that would make a candidate have "more perfect" views?

Also, I know that Clark helped Kerry (testified for him?) when he was working on behalf of gay/lesbian issues - but this is something I know no details about and would like to know more. What was the situation, was this a military issue, and what were the goals and outcome?

I really appreciate any discussion on this. I feel that this is a hole in my base of knowledge on Clark that I would like to fill!

Thanks a lot

[Brian_Expat]

18. It's easy to claim support for equality. . .

. . . but the lesson from the Clinton administration is that people who claim support to get your money and primary vote often don't execute when the going gets tough. Sometimes they even go against your rights if it's politically convenient, as Clinton did with DOMA.

Since that time, I've wanted to see in a candidate a history of fighting for a gay equality issue against the "prevailing winds," in order to ensure that he or she doesn't fall into the "Clinton zone" of verbal support out of political advantage.

So far, Kerry and Dean get high marks. Kerry proposed ENDA-style legislation in the mid 1980s, a tough time for GLBT people and a tough time to stand for us in the midst of HIV hysteria (when Ronald Reagan was grudging to fund ANY HIV research because it was seen as a "gay disease" and thus no big deal). Back then, they had to name the AIDS research after "Ryan White," a kid who caught HIV from bad blood, "through no fault of his own." Gay people, on the other hand, got HIV because of "their own fault -- their sin."

Dean's fight on the civil unions front was noted in another of my posts, where I was there to support him and saw the real risks he took.

You could argue Edwards' position on ENDA is unpopular as a Senator in NC, but I don't think it's to the same level.

Kucinich's position is good and he's stood behind it, but I don't think he can win the nomination, let alone the presidency. Ditto for CMB and AS.

The other candidates strike me as being either too political/non-committed (going with the polls like Gephardt) or not having done anything notable in the past to suggest a commitment beyond what's in his platform (Clark).

[MarkTwain]

17. Well, since your thesis was set up...

... where the point could be seen from a mile away, please allow me to offer that I would sooner have someone who actually has an opportunity to win, to prevail over DimSon next November, who truly will have the chance to appoint up wards of Four SCOTUS which will directly effect the matter under discussion.

General Clark has already amply demonstrated his commitment in his military work. He also has gone very far, especially for a member of the military who is looking for military support, in both his public and written declarations since his candidacy.

Moreover he, without little doubt in anyone's mind (especially that of Karl Rove) will vanquish the evil which is in the Oval Office and West Wing.

The same can not, at all, be said for the challenged and vulnerable "good" Doctor who is, at best, would be a very flawed candidate.

[Brian_Expat]

19. I simply don't see anything in Clark's record. . .

. . . to say anything positive or negative about him.

A mild positive is his platform, set up very recently, but I think that's counted against by the mild negative of his position on gays in the military at the start of his campaign, which changed a few things.

I want real, established history on gay issues before supporting a candidate. Too much of a focus on "electability" by a candidate automatically makes me wary, because far too often, the "electable" thing to do is turn on gay people and hurt them like Clinton did with DOMA (he even advertised signing it on right-wing radio with ads that said he "stood against the homosexual agenda!). :wow:

I never understood Clinton's appeal, I always viewed him as a dishonest sellout after DADT and ESPECIALLY DOMA.

Do you truly think that's an unreasonable position for a pragmatic voter to take?

Am I missing situations from Clark's past where he stood up in public and fought for us? If so, please share them -- we need more information on his status as a candidate.

[Lefta Dissenter]

21. that's why I had asked the question about

his helping Kerry - I think he testified for him, either when he was fighting against DontAskDontTell, or some other time. But I don't know ANYTHING about that, and I'm hoping that a Clark supporter (or anyone else) will chime in with the details.

I have NO doubt that Clark will stand up for the rights of every man and woman. I have heard enough from the town hall meetings, and other times when he has been asked questions. And I know that he has described situations in which he has stood up for Gay Rights.

But since people who don't know or support Clark at this time want something 'concrete' to hang their hat on (and I can understand that), I wanted to know his history in helping Kerry.
If he, indeed, testified in support of making positive changes, then that would be at least ONE act in his background that would show his commitment.

[Brian_Expat]

24. If Clark was a vocal opponent of DADT in league with Kerry. . .

. . . that would qualify as a history of standing up IMO. Anyone have any details about this?

[MarkTwain]

22. Well, we have two choices....

One. Support a candidate who has, indeed, acted in a highly visible manner by enacting the historic legislation in Vermont. But who, unless there is an overwhelming sea change politically, has not a Vermont snow ball's chance in Mobile in the Summer of being elected.

Two. Look to a viable candidate who has published the following very specific, non-varying, highly supportive goals for his administration. An administration that we truly have an opportunity to witness being sworn in on January 20th. Excerpts :


Equal Rights for All Should Mean All
Gay City News
Volume 2, Issue 49 | December 4-10, 2003

By Wesley Clark

The ink was barely dry on the Massachusetts State Supreme Court's gay marriage decision, and the Republican Party was trying to use it as an election year issue to divide Americans. But this issue should not be a polarizing one. There's no reason why we shouldn't treat all Americans equally no matter what their race, religion or sexual orientation. That's why I welcomed the Massachusetts court decision with open arms.

I remember a conversation I had with a fellow Army officer a few months ago. He hadn't thought through my position supporting equal rights for gays. I asked him, "If you had a gay child, would you love that child as much as your other children?" And he said, "Yes, of course." And I asked if he would want his child to have the same rights and opportunities as every other child. And again he said, "Yes, of course." When we look at it in human terms, we recognize that this issue is about how we want our children to be treated. In America, every child should be equal in the eyes of the law, period.

Throughout the course of American history, too many groups have struggled for equal rights and opportunities. Growing up in Little Rock in the 1950s, I saw first-hand how wrenching the fight for civil rights was. In fact, I went to school for a year in Tennessee because they had closed the schools in Little Rock.

In too many ways, the struggle for equal rights is still on-going. Today, one of the frontlines in the civil rights struggle runs through the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. We must always stand by the principle: every American should enjoy the exact same rights as every other American.

- SNIP -

http://clark04.com/articles/013/


Statement on GLBT Issues

Ensuring each and every citizen's ability to reach his or her full human potential

Today, America faces serious challenges. Meeting the challenges of our time demands three things: new leadership, new ideas, and a new spirit of service. I've served this country alongside the most talented men and women in the world. To fulfill our country's full potential, we must nurture every person's abilities regardless of his or her individual characteristics, such as race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. We are all Americans. Therefore, I am calling all Americans to find a way to serve with a new, inclusive spirit of patriotism. We cannot reach our full potential by discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation. To encourage all Americans to actively participate in our democracy, I would:


Ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. We should make sure that the Civil Rights Act bans discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and sexual orientation.

Strengthen federal protections against hate crimes. No one in this country should be the target of violence because of their appearance, religion, or sexual orientation.

Protect all families. Families in the United States come in many shapes and sizes. Currently, most of our laws extend rights and responsibilities only to heterosexual families and explicitly exclude same-sex couples from enjoying those same rights and responsibilities. It is in the best interest of our country to promote stable communities and families - this includes both heterosexual and same-sex families. Accordingly, I believe that same-sex couples should not be denied rights to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need.

Give federal employees the right to name same-sex partners as beneficiaries. Major U.S. corporations have adopted human resources policies that allow employees to designate a domestic partner as a beneficiary of health and other employment benefits. The federal government should do the same.

Ensure that everyone can serve. I believe that the military needs to rethink the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. It does not serve this country to discriminate against people who want to serve in our armed forces. I would ask the military to craft and implement a policy that ensures that everyone who wants to serve their country is permitted to do so with honor and dignity. I would ask the military to look seriously at the British policy, which prohibits sexual misconduct by both heterosexuals and homosexuals. I would then submit the new policy to Congress to replace the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law.

Ensure access to affordable health care, including AIDS/HIV Services. My health care proposal ensures that all Americans would have access to affordable health insurance - and sets aside funding for public health programs to improve prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS.

As President, I will fight for the civil rights of all Americans. That includes lesbian and gay Americans.


http://clark04.com/issues/glbt/

[Brian_Expat]

23. Still nothing unique here. . .

He's saying the right things, but so did Bill Clinton in the early 1990s. He didn't break from the pack on either of these declarations, which is great IF we can trust him to be courageous if the political winds shift. In order to make that determination, I am looking for just one courageous stance from him where he stood up for what was right when it was unpopular.

[MarkTwain]

25. Somehow I am not surprised...

... and even phrased my response in anticipation of such.

Two suggestions :

One. Call the campaign. I'm sure they will help.

Two. Look at one of the final points of his Declaration:

Ensure that everyone can serve. I believe that the military needs to rethink the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. It does not serve this country to discriminate against people who want to serve in our armed forces. I would ask the military to craft and implement a policy that ensures that everyone who wants to serve their country is permitted to do so with honor and dignity. I would ask the military to look seriously at the British policy, which prohibits sexual misconduct by both heterosexuals and homosexuals. I would then submit the new policy to Congress to replace the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law.

I don't know about you but that looks pretty ballsy by my standards. A General. Running for President. Looking for the military vote. Not only comes out so definitively in terms of Gay Rights, in general, but has committed himself and his campaign the repeal of DADT. Rather courageous, I think.

Good luck on your further explorations on behalf of the General.

[Brian_Expat]

20. Also, to clarify one point. . .

. . . I am willing to bet that most GLBT voters have already selected a candidate for the primaries since we're so politically active versus the average American. So this is NOT an effort to pitch a candidate, rather explore our theories as Democrats from a queer perspective.

[Spiderm0n]

26. Gays need 100% support

or they will never get legalized gay marriage.

[tedoll78]

27. I noticed..

a TON of gay folks when Dean came to speak at the rally here last May (or was it June?), myself included.