Change? What Change?: The Primaries from a Gay Perspective

Change? Bah, humbug.

When I watched John Kerry endorse Barack Obama, I couldn't help but think: "Here we go, again."

Kerry, in case you forgot, was the Vietnam war hero turned anti-war hero who didn't have the courage to stand up to Karl Rove and the Swiftboaters and threw gays under the bus to get elected in 2004.

And we relented, not wanting to upset Democratic Party big-whigs like Bill Clinton who made it sound like WE were the ones who brought on the antigay marriage initiatives in eleven states that year. They passed, Kerry lost, and we were blamed. By the way, has either Bill or Hillary Clinton ever confirmed that Bill Clinton advised Kerry to support the antigay ballot initiatives as a way of defusing the gay issue?

So here's Barack Obama, so fresh and new -- getting his national jump-start at the 2004 Democratic National Convention where he talked about red and blue states and having gay friends. Yes -- he actually used the word "gay." But no more. Both in his New Hampshire concession speech and in his thank you to Kerry, Obama reverted to the code word "equality."

Here we go again.

After reading Laura Kiritsy's excellent article in Bay Windows about LGBT influence during the New Hampshire campaign, we must thank Human Rights Campaign field organizer Heather Gibson as well as local LGBT folks who asked the candidates questions at open forums -- at least they got Obama to use the code word. Apparently the HRC "Equality" tee shirts and stickers were ubiquitous.

But what struck me was how Kiritsy described Obama volunteers who apparently tried to shoo Gibson away as she passed out pro-equality stickers outside an event. It was only after a congresswoman hugged Gibson that they stopped eyeing her so suspiciously.

To me this is emblematic of the kind of Rovian Stockholm Syndrome that has gripped Washington and apparently continues to grip Democratic political campaigns. Once again, inherent in the unscripted soul of this "change" campaign, gays were initially perceived as a threat.

The other political take-away from Kiritsy's piece is that the LOCAL crowds were genuinely pro-gay as if the inclusion of the LGBT community is also symbolic of "change" in the movement to elect the first African American president.

But without Kiritsy or syndicated lesbian journalist Lisa Keen, or commentary on our blogs, websites, and listservs, I would not know about LGBT participation. They have helped flesh out my own analytical election pieces for gaywired.com on Hillary's emotional moment and on a recap New Hampshire and looking forward.

As Kerry Eleveld pointed out in The Advocate, the only time the presidential candidates mustered for the LGBT press was the Logo/HRC forum last summer, and Clinton's 15 minute post-Logo sit-down and Obama's 15 minute phoner with The Advocate after "ex-gay" gospel singer Donnie McClurkin's tour through South Carolina. Edwards never agreed to an interview with the national LGBT publication.

I have been pitching for interviews with both Clinton and Obama since the start of the campaigns, and with Edwards since last September. I interviewed Bill Richardson after his official announcement in Los Angeles -- he wanted me to know how good he was on LGBT issues. After Chris Crain and I wrote about his "maricon" [Spanish for "faggot"] moment, however, I got nowhere.

Now comes the story in Queerty called "DNC Plays Politics with Gay Press." The story revolves around email exchanges among the Democratic National Committee communications staff that came to light as a result of a lawsuit filed against the DNC and chair Howard Dean by onetime DNC LGBT Outreach Coordinator Donald Hitchcock (read about the lawsuit on the Out For Democracy blog).

The money quote from the emails comes from Julie Tagen, DNC Deputy Finance Director who says that Hitchcock's replacement, Brian Bond should handle all gay press inquiries to interview Dean because, she wrote, "I tend to use the blade [referring to the Washington Blade] and the other gay papers in the bottom of the birdcage."

(Read Chris Crain's blog for more.)

Ouch. The DNC, the suspicious Obama volunteers, the inaccessible Clinton, and John Edwards -- I forgot to mention that one of the conditions that Edwards made when he visited the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center -- the same center he said everyone should know about during his turn on Logo -- was no press! I was in the Logo audience, boiling over. They would have known about it if you had allowed me to cover it -- just as I covered visits by Al Gore and Bill Bradley!

Actually, I knew how the DNC felt about the Washington Blade because I did get an interview with Dean and I asked him about the paper's reporting on Hitchcock's firing. It's important to note that at the time, Dean and others believed the Blade's editor Chris Crain was a gay Republican. The impression was largely the result of the Blade's "persistence in asking tough questions of the DNC and Dean," Crain told me later, including asking questions about the dismantling of the LGBT constituency desk despite Dean's promise not to do so, as well as questions about Dean's appearance on the 700 Club, and the events surrounding Hitchcock's firing. In fact, Crain said, he left the GOP in 1998 when the House voted for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It confirmed for him that the Republican Party had been hijacked by a wing of the party that he wanted nothing more to do with. He's since been very publicly independent. In my interview, Dean said:

"First of all, we consider the Washington Blade to be the New York Post of the gay and lesbian press corp. They're not credible and they have somebody who has an agenda which is certainly not favorable to the Democratic Party so we simply don't give them any credence. Secondly, I'm not going to comment on anybody's firing except to say that it had nothing to do with retribution or anything like that. It was simply a job performance matter. Thirdly -- we have -- for the first time in DNC history - put money into Illinois to make sure that the marriage amendment didn't go forward and we won that one."

I'm sure I secured the interview because I was specifically interested in the DNC's 50-state strategy and the then-new Inclusion Rule written by openly gay DNC super-delegate Garry Shay, of the Los Angeles Stonewall Democratic Club.

I also wanted to ask Dean about marriage equality:

"What we support is equal rights under the law for every single American. We don't take a position on the "M" word. Even in the gay community, there are differences on this one. We believe everybody in American deserves the same rights under the law.... We oppose marriage amendments, whether they're federal or state. We do not believe in enshrining discrimination in any constitution and we've put our money where our mouth is. The Democratic Party believes that 'equal rights under the law' has to be for everybody and they have to be for everybody in every state. You can argue about whether that means marriage or civil unions but there's a huge difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party."

During that interview in August 2006, I also asked Dean about the prevailing attitude espoused by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and others that gays cost Kerry the election in 2004. Dean said:

"We don't, first of all, believe that we lost because of gay issues. We think we weren't sufficiently vigorous in supporting our turnout efforts in rural communities and we weren't sufficiently vigorous in defending a Democratic point of view. Unlike some other folks in the Party, my view is if you want to win, you've got to behave like Democrats, and not Republican-light."

(The full interview is available here but as I post this, the server at IN Los Angeles magazine is temporarily down.)

These were important points since during an appearance at Access Now for Lesbian and Gay Equality (ANGLE) and later at the California Democratic Convention that April in 2006, Dean was backtracking on quotes saying the DNC did not support same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, the California Party and all those seeking LGBT political and financial endorsements supported full marriage equality.

And yet -- other than stickers indicating support for California Assemblymember Mark Leno's marriage bill and appearances by candidates before the LGBT Caucus, there was little LGBT visibility at the convention.

Eric Stern, then-head of National Stonewall Democrats (who now supports Edwards), told me:

"Its going to be incumbent on our community, especially our donors when they have the opportunity, to put a little more pressure on our candidates on our issues. Donors are the individuals who have the most access to candidates, who have the most persuasion. Our donors need to be smarter and be more aggressive. You see the effect it's having in California where the bar is marriage and nothing lower."

But it's not JUST about gay donors, ANGLE honcho Jeremy Bernard, who now supports Obama, told me at the time:

"I've gotten a sense from my friends -- and I feel this way too -- that we're tired of being ATM machines. They come and take our money and leave California and they don't really pay attention to what we think or believe. In Boston [during the Democratic Convention in 2004], we were good soldiers because Bush is so bad. But it's the last time. We're not going to swallow our pride like that ever again. In 1992 [during Clinton's inauguration], we were part of a new, exciting world. To think that 12 years later we have moved backwards -- it's horrifying. And the fact that most people didn't think about it [gay visibility] and no one noticed at the Democratic convention -- that's the saddest part."

The saddest part today is that LGBT people are still shooed away, still eyed with suspicion, still addressed through code words like "equality" and their representatives -- the LGBT press - are still shunned -- while the candidates talk about change and inclusively.

Perhaps the most painful part is knowing that the candidates are aware that the LGBT vote is the second largest and most loyal group in the Democratic Party -- roughly 75% -- second only to African Americans. So while the candidates court the Black vote in South Carolina as a "core constituency" -- they are once again rendering us indivisible.

Some change.

So what do we do about it?

We must show up, vote, participate in both the Democratic and Republican primaries and demand to be counted in the exit polls.

LGBT activists and organizations must launch email and letter-writing campaigns to the national and local media and pollsters demanding that the gay question be asked and included in the final tallies.

And we must also demand to be included as a demographic, a distinct minority -- not as an issue. No more should we be sandwiched in between Does someone in your household own and gun? And Does someone in your household belong to a union?

We should be counted and included alongside African Americans, Hispanics and Asians.

And we should conduct our own polling -- from HRC to unscientific polls on blogs and websites such as at GayNewsWatch.com and DavidMixner.com. LGBT reporters can then extrapolate how we voted.

This is a critical election and in the long run, we will vote for the candidate we think will best run the country and eventually help us achieve full equality.

But for now, it is only in the voting booth where LGBT people are full -- not second class -- American citizens.

Comments

[gaynewyorker]

Terrific piece, thanks so much. Seven ways from Sunday, in one fell swoop. Aces!

[candideyam]

On the whole, this is a really important, valuable post. Sadly, I think it's also important to note just how personally uninvolved huge segments of our community are. There is, in my experience, a huge swath of GLBT-land that is completely reactionary when it comes to politics, and is perfectly happy to follow the herd. This year, the word in Boystown and WeHo and the East Village seems to be that Hillary is the candidate to support, and that assessment is simply being accepted as fact. I don't have a problem with any member of our community supporting any of the candidates (except Huckabee, obv - LOL), but we will never see the kind of respect that you talk about until each and every member of our tribes demand it. Following the Dem du jour, lemming-like, will never earn us anything other than a trip to the bottom of the cliff.

[mpgarr]

I wish that some damn politician of either party would take up the banner for two issues--GLBT rights and Abortion--and argue for both in the this manner.
First--on the issue of gay rights and "marriage"--GLBT people are citizens of the United States and as such, they deserve access to the whole panoply of rights granted to American citizens. Having access to civil unions/marriage or whatever term one chooses to call this is not about granting "special rights" it is merely granting GLBT people all of their rights as stated in the Constitution for our citizens.
On abortion--Yes abortion is not necessarily a good thing and is something that as a society we would rather not happen, but one has to look at reality--abortion is something that has always taken place, therefore make it accessible, legal and safe. To deny a woman total control over her reproductive rights, is to deny her all of her rights.
The connection between both GLBT rights and Abortion is that with both--citizens of the United States of America are denied their rights. To deny such rights is not something we do in this country and anyone who acts to deny such rights is not in all senses of the word--true, "freedome loving" Americans.

[WilliePilgrim]

Have Barney Frank and Larry Craig signed-off on this?

[LeaderofMen]

Unless gays vote in record numbers - for a DEM - we will continue to not be heard.

After all, I know far too many gay people who don't vote because they're too busy a) partying b) being air heads c) tweaking d) are plain stupid or most importantly e) are Republicans.

So, don't blame the candidates. Look inside and find out why we, as a voting bloc, don't get what we want.

Really. If you want gays to win with respect to our important issues you need to address the POLITICS of this issue within OUR community.

[itmaybetoolate]

I was not aware of Edwards attitude toward the "gay" press - very disappointing. And he is, in my opinion, the most courageous of the candidates. I cannot support Hillary, the neocon, or Obama, the all fluff, no stuff candidate; and now Edwards!? You say show up and vote! Why? I cannot, in good conscience, vote for people who refuse to publicly grant everyone full human rights. I just cannot do it anymore. As for the HRC, let us NEVER forget that the organization endorsed liberman!!! Face it folks, gays and lesbians have no real political representation in this country.

[ChicagoMolly]

"Equality" is a good word. I like it a lot. It's not so much the word "equality" that rubs me wrong; it's the Texas Sidestep that all the candidates EXCEPT Kucinich and Gravel launch into to avoid saying out loud that it includes the equal right to a civil marriage for all of us. It makes my ears hurt to listen to Obama go all earnest on us and say that we just shouldn't talk about "marriage" so much. If a civil union is just as good, then why worry so much about the word? The word just isn't that important. Unfortunately, nobody has the gumption to ask him (or any of them), "If the word "marriage" isn't so important, why are all you hetero folk so insanely desperate to keep the word for yourselves? It surely seems to be important to you!"

When they say "equality" it comes across as "equality*". You know, like the cable ads that promise you the moon, the stars, and 4700 channels for only $40.00* a month! You follow the asterisk to the bottom of the page and find a 500-word disclaimer in microscopic print that you'll really end up paying a helluva lot more money for a helluva lot less service. That kind of thing disappoints me mightily.

So here's my suggestion for a t-shirt slogan:

NOT EQUALITY
WITH AN ASTERISK
EQUALITY PERIOD

[DrNetwork]

I will probably be vilified by somebody, but the timing on the gay marriage issue just seemed to be off. If people had been willing to wait for maybe ten months or so just so we wouldn't have had the four more years of Bush/Cheney that we have had. I believe I'm being pragmatic, but I'm sure many won't see it that way. Anyway, if we could communicate in a more nonviolent way that might be a good first step. I strongly urge all to view Marshall Rosenberg on YouTube. Maybe democrats of all stripes can learn this and help build a real, lasting coalition of compassion.

[meileen]

Great post. I read the article you referred to yesterday and was devastated to read about the nasty looks the women were receiving from Obama supporters. I was glad to later read that they changed their attitude. It"s sad, though, that those women were not received with open arms. I mean, the stickers they were handing out said, "Equality" " what in the world is scary about that?!

I"m pretty sick of the entire Democratic Party at this point. They use us as they know we are a very politically aware component of society with some deep pockets. They know we have nowhere else to go, and that our votes are in the Democratic bag. But I too will not give money to this party, no more, not until we are included and recognized as part of the "all are created equal" reality.

In 2004, we were forced to endure from the Dem party, "Ssshhh. We know you want equality, but we can"t tackle that right now. Your time will come." Such crap would never have been taken from any other minority, yet we did sit back and have to stomach insult after insult. Had to endure our president asking for a constitutional amendment that would keep us from ever gaining our equality. That should have had our elected officials up in arms, but we do not rate such courage.

And when General Pace recently called us immoral, it took HRC 3 days to comment, with BO finally standing up and saying something shortly thereafter. Where the hell is the outrage?! (Jeez, Al Sharpton had more of an immediate and righteous response than the 2 leading Democratic presidential candidates.)

To summarize, we are not wanted, not respected, barely tolerated, and there is no Bobby Kennedy out there willing to stand up and demand our rights. It could have been Obama, but it"s obvious he does not have the courage.

Thanks for posting. There are folks out there who do care and don"t know of what we speak. We need them more than they realize.

[Kane]

If we have learned anything from the recent history lessons being discussed in the media surrounding Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement and Lyndon Johnson, it is that people make change happen, not politicians. We cannot wait for politicians to get around to making change when it's convienient for them to do so. We must not be left standing around wondering who is pro-this or who is anti-that? If it takes making politicians uncomfortable to take a stand on issues of importance, so be it. But it will be our failure if we go along to get along and allow them to remain silent.

[Kane]

Same-sex marriage is not a left versus right issue, although some have used it as one. Rather, when the onion is peeled, what is found at the core of the issue is the question of equality. It may very well be true that the majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. However, a much larger majority of Americans oppose discrimination.

Let"s say that two individuals of the same-sex are joined in a civil union rather than a marriage. One of these individuals applies for a loan, a job, or some place where such applications are necessary and in-depth information is required. If such an individual were to state that he or she is married, then it could be argued that a lie was commited on the application. If one states that they are joined in a civil union, then it gives those in a position of power to discriminate on the basis of one"s sexual preference. Classifying all married couples as married regardless of sexual orientation prevents such possible discriminatory and prejudicial scenarios from occuring.

There are those who argue that the institution of marriage must be protected from same-sex marriage. However, if a heterosexual marriage can actually be damaged by a same-sex marriage, and it"s sanctity hurt by a same-sex couple using the M-word, then I would argue that the damaged heterosexual marriage is not worth the paper that it is printed on.

As stated above, this issue is really about equality. Same-sex couples aren"t asking for anything extra, nor do they desire special treatment; they just want fairness with the same considerations that heterosexual couples now enjoy. As a heterosexual, same-sex marriage in of itself serves me no purpose. But in the broader scope of things, none of us are truely free unless all of us are considered equal under the law. In the end, the question is not why a same-sex union needs to be called a marriage, but rather why not?

[LaBohemian]

I gave over $8,000 queer dollars to candidates for President in 2004 and will say categorically that I will absolutely refuse to give a dime in 2008 to any of them.

[Pdubya]

Change?

Got any?

people need to wake up.

[Pdubya]

there are two candidates speaking to this.

would you be o.k. with all of us be treated as individuals? same rights, nothing special either way?

kucinich and paul.

i've done my research.

here are a few things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18

[beachmom]

Kerry has been a long time supporter of gay rights throughout his entire career in the Senate. In 2004, he supported civil unions, and it must have the same rights afforded marriage. That is a very progressive position, even though it falls short to the name "gay marriage". Still, it is a leap from what politicians had said in the past. Kerry also voted against DOMA. NOBODY voted against DOMA -- not even Wellstone. And Clinton signed it into law. That was a brave vote you seem to want to forget.

As Newsweek reported, in the fall of '04 Bill Clinton advised Kerry to turn around and back the gay marriage ban initatives on state ballots, including Ohio. You know what Kerry's response was: "No, I'll NEVER do that".

Yet you say he threw "gays under the bus". I would say he was probably the best candidate for president gays have ever had, and what is sad is that to this day, you can't even see that.