NATIONAL NEWS

Democrats face heightened expectations (Gay)
Clinton rebuked over marriage, as activists ponder ’08 criteria

By ELIZABETH WEILL-GREENBERG
Friday, March 17, 2006

As the gay rights movement has gained momentum in recent years, expectations for those Democrats who are running or considering a White House run have evolved quickly.

In 1992, Bill Clinton made history by specifically reaching out to gays, relying on longtime friend and gay activist David Mixner to introduce the candidate to a segment of voters that hadn’t been directly courted before.

In the general election that year, President George H.W. Bush sparred over the issue of gays in the military. Clinton pledged to allow gays to serve openly, while Bush said he supported the ban.

The issue was little more than a blip in the campaign but became a political nightmare for Clinton once in office. Under pressure from members of Congress from both parties and from Pentagon brass including Gen. Colin Powell, Clinton backed down from his campaign promise. Instead, he agreed to the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" compromise, under which gays can serve but not openly.

Clinton cruised to an easy re-election victory in 1996 over GOP nominee Bob Dole but gay voter turnout decreased dramatically that year, according to Blade reports from the time.

Some speculated it was because Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act and then touted his support for the measure on Christian radio stations. DOMA, a federal law, bans federal recognition of gay marriages and allows one state to ignore marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples by another state.

When Democrats again fought a contested primary in 2000, the debate shifted from the military to civil unions, employment nondiscrimination and a federal hate crime law, according to John Marble, communications director for the National Stonewall Democrats, a gay partisan group.

"A lot of pro-gay candidates had relationships with the LGBT community in 2000 and 2002," said Marble. "We felt like civil unions were the gold standard they could reach for. We look back and say [civil unions] are a nice stop over."

Both Vice President Al Gore and former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley backed civil unions and repeal of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" during the 2000 primary, even though civil unions were still "a radical concept," according to Marble.

The Human Rights Campaign endorsed Gore in both the primary and general election that year.

Raising the bar in ’04

Just four years later, support for civil unions was no longer enough in the eyes of many gay rights advocates, who demanded full marriage equality in 2004 after same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts.

Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, had signed that state’s historic civil union law and received an outpouring of money and support from gays that propelled him to early frontrunner status. But Dean opposed gay marriage, as did the rest of the Democratic field, with the exception of three long-shot candidates: former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun, Rev. Al Sharpton, and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the eventual Democratic nominee, supported civil unions and opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, pushed by President Bush, which would have banned states from marrying gay couples. The FMA was defeated in both the House and Senate.

Kerry raised the ire of some gay Democrats, however, when he went on record supporting an amendment to the constitution of his home state that bans gay marriage. Massachusetts was and is the only one in the country that marries gay couples.

He has since criticized the Massachusetts Democratic Party for backing gay marriage in its platform, something the state parties in California, New York and Oregon have done as well.

Gay rights also figured prominently in the 2004 presidential debates, when Kerry mentioned that Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian in response to a question asking if homosexuality is a choice.

Marriage looms in ’08

Now, as gay rights advocates look ahead to the 2008 presidential election, marriage promises to figure prominently again, along with positions on state marriage amendments and leadership on gay rights.

As gays have become more socially accepted, the expectations for Democratic candidates courting gay voters have risen. That point was driven home last month when a prominent New York gay activist announced in a memo leaked to the media that he would not raise money for the re-election bid of the state’s junior U.S. senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton, because of her opposition to full marriage equality.

"My vote for Sen. Clinton will come despite her regrettable statements on the issue of marriage for same-sex couples and her current support for DOMA," wrote Alan Van Capelle, president of the Empire State Pride Agenda, a New York gay rights group. "[Clinton is] a complete disappointment and does not deserve an LGBT fundraiser."

Clinton is widely viewed as the frontrunner among Democrats expected to run for president in 2008. She has said she supports the Defense of Marriage Act and opposes full marriage rights for gays. But she does support civil unions, according to an Associated Press report.

Clinton’s office declined to comment for this story.

So will support for gay marriage be a requirement to win an endorsement from gay rights groups in 2008?

The Empire State Pride Agenda declined to say, but in a published opinion column, Van Capelle wrote, "Before you decide to open up your wallet to support a candidate or dedicate your time to get involved in any political race, ask them what they will do to help us win the right to marry, or to fund organizations that provide us with much needed services, or to protect transgendered New Yorkers from discrimination, or to keep LGBT youth safe in our schools."

At the HRC, the nation’s richest gay lobby group, the only "litmus test" for candidates is whether they oppose a federal constitutional amendment to ban equal marriage rights, according to Samantha Smoot, HRC’s political director.

"If a candidate does not oppose writing discrimination into the Constitution, they’re out," she said. "We don’t consider endorsing them."

Other issues, like anti-discrimination laws and marriage equality, are part of the range of issues considered when HRC decides to endorse a candidate, she said. The issues that HRC weighs have grown as gay rights come more into the mainstream and candidates’ positions evolve, Smoot explained.

When asked to comment on Van Capelle’s views, Smoot said, "HRC supports and raises money for a lot of candidates who aren’t there yet" on marriage. However, she added, a national group like HRC is in a different position from a state organization.

"It’s a different situation for a state organization to look at their two senators and want to hold them accountable, and a national organization that’s looking at 100 senators and wanting to work with all of them," she said.

HRC also looks at candidates’ viability because in some races there may be more than one pro-gay candidate, Smoot said. Incumbents who have been supportive in the past are more likely to receive HRC’s support, she added.

While HRC is largely focused on gay rights, the group also considers a candidate’s support for women’s reproductive freedom, she said. But HRC is supporting Democrat Bob Casey, who opposes abortion rights, in his Senate campaign against the anti-gay Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).

Politicians playing catch up

HRC’s presidential forum in 2003 illustrated the increased visibility of gay rights issues in presidential campaigns, Smoot said. Seven of the nine Democratic presidential candidates participated in the forum. Only Senators Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John Edwards (D-N.C.) did not attend.

"Over the past three or four presidential elections, GLBT issues have become of more central importance to campaigns," she said. "Politics is playing catch-up to culture."

But Marble of the Stonewall Democrats said that Democratic candidates can see support for gay rights as a political liability.

Marble agreed that despite some candidates’ squeamishness, the bar has been raised for Democratic candidates in recent years when it comes to gay issues.

The Stonewall Democrats and HRC questionnaires for federal candidates in 2004 reflected higher expectations from candidates.

Both HRC and Stonewall Democrats added queries about employment discrimination protections and gay- and trans-inclusive hate crime laws. In 2000, HRC only asked candidates about their views on sexual orientation, not on discrimination protections based on gender identity. Stonewall Democrats included questions on gender identity after 2002, Marble said.

A representative of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force said the group does not issue endorsements of political candidates.

Although HRC asked in 2000 if candidates support full marriage equality for gays, there were more questions in 2004 addressing partnership benefits, tax law and relationship recognition.

"By 2008 we will have different standards," Marble said. "I expect our community to be able to press more on these questions, especially on the issue of marriage."

No single issue, including marriage equality, has emerged as a litmus test for candidates, Marble said. Stonewall Democrats have not yet crafted their endorsement criteria for 2008. Marble said the group will push to include support for marriage equality in the national party platform, and also will consider a candidate’s position on state amendments banning gay marriage.

But while expectations of Democratic politicians have been raised, gay rights activists tend to overlook an anti-gay past if the person’s position has changed. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which President Clinton signed into law, enjoyed wide bipartisan support.

"Since then, many Democrats have progressed on that issue," Marble said.

Stonewall Democrats are honoring one such legislator, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who voted in favor of DOMA, for his work on helping gay victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Marble said.

"That particular issue is definitely an issue of progression," said Marble. "It’s hard to have a litmus test on legislation passed 10 years ago."

national | local | world | health | letters | viewpoint | arts | classifieds | real estate | about us

© 2006 | A Window Media Publication | Privacy Policy