The concerns of the gay community go mainstream

August 10, 2007

I’m afraid I wasn’t able to watch last night’s candidate forum devoted to gay rights issues, but I’ve read quite a bit of the news coverage and the event seemed to go really well.

Before we get into the particulars, let’s not brush too quickly past the significance of the forum itself. We’ve reached a point in which Democratic presidential candidates are anxious to endear themselves to the GLBT community, and jumped at the chance to emphasize their support for gay rights. It’s an impressive milestone and a huge step forward for social progress.

Indeed, of all the coverage I’ve seen, my very favorite tidbit of information relates to something that happened outside the forum.

Another sign that the moment for controversy over gay issues has passed was the loneliness of the sole protester. The debate drew just one protester, a grizzled 65-year old retired firefighter named John Franklin, who carried a large black sign declaring “Homo-Sex” a “threat to national security.”

Franklin said he was “angry at the Christian church for not responding” to him. And he maintained that “one protester is better than none.”

Well, actually, one protestor is kind of a joke, but therein lies the point. Democratic hopefuls arrived en masse to demonstrate their fealty to the concerns of the gay community, and one right-wing guy showed up to denounce the event. As far as I can tell, not a single Republican candidate or the RNC denounced the Dems for their participation, and this morning, nearly all of the coverage is focusing on what the candidates said at the forum, rather than the historic breakthrough the forum represents.

In other words, gay rights are mainstream. Of course there’s going to be an event devoted to the GLBT community. Of course Dems are going to show up and vow to take gay rights seriously. Of course the candidates are going to be judged based on their willingness to advance the broader cause of equality.

The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice.

As for the details, there was, as you may have heard, one painful moment for one of the candidates. Bill Richardson was asked whether homosexuality is biological. It didn’t go well.

“It’s a choice,” he seems to guess, and then sinks into his armchair as the shocked silence indicates that he’s given the wrong answer.

“I’m not sure you understood the question,” Etheridge offers.

But he can’t quite recover. “I’m not a scientist. I don’t see this as an issue of science or definition,” he tries. “I don’t like to answer definitions like that, that perhaps are grounded in science or something else I don’t understand.”

Now, Richardson elaborated/clarified his beliefs in a statement after the forum. “Let me be clear — I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity happen by choice,” Richardson said. “But I’m not a scientist, and the point I was trying to make is that no matter how it happens, we are all equal and should be treated that way under the law.”

It’s good that Richardson backpedaled, but he’s going to have a hard time living this one down. Given that he also apparently dodged most of the other questions, it sounds like Richardson lost the most ground last night.

The top-tier candidates (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards) all seemed to do fine, though all struggled to explain why they support civil unions while opposing gay marriage. Edwards, interestingly enough, has been on record saying he opposes gay marriage for religious reasons, but said last night he was wrong to make that argument.

And who won? Well, as far as I can tell, no one was as warmly received as Dennis Kucinich.

First question, paraphrased: Congressman, is there anything about the LGBT agenda with which you disagree? Kucinich: No! The rest was the Tao of Dennis, a series of love poems to social justice, equality, and “solitary journeys of courage.” Got to tout his support for single-payer health care and early opposition to the Iraq War. Questioner/rocker Melissa Ethridge encouraged Kucinich to run for president again and again until he wins — a view not fully shared by the Washington press corps. He closed with, “I love all of you!” and earned a major standing O.

One other thing. Some candidates, most notably Edwards, seemed to be critical of Hillary Clinton by highlighting Bill Clinton’s mistakes on gay rights (DADT, DOMA). I hope candidates stop this. Hillary is not Bill. Bill’s policies in 1993 would not be the same as Hillary’s in 2009. Can we not take shots at one candidate based on the positions of his or her spouse?

August 10, 2007 at 9:16 am

The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice.

Yes, and in that case, Alberto Gonzales would make an excellent historian.

Glad to hear the “top-tier candidates” talk about civil liberties for a change. What’s next for the “top-tier candidates”? Talk of preserving the “Constitutional Republic”?

Looks like another yawner. Wake me up when martial law is declared.

This event is really encouraging. I missed the event (I was under the impression CB watched this stuff so I didn’t have to) but have heard the coverage this morning. The GLBT community has come a long way from Reagan’s clueless ramblings and dismisal of AIDS in the 80s.

There was really no news about the event except for Richardson. Everyone seemed to agree. Gay marriage was the only other bone of contention. As I listened to the positions, particularly Obama & Clinton and DOMA my first thought was – too bad. After thinknig on it for a while I wonder if this is not the wise course. The community had moved into the mainstream partly because of things like DADT. Now most people want to repeal it and allow open service. The cost for ultimately winning open military service was DADT. Could the same thing work with gay marriage? Support domestic partnerships (arguably seperate but equal) until people don’t even think twice about it, then do away with it and grab the big prize.

I wonder if this approach (put the frog in a pot of cold water and slowly crank up the heat) work on other issues? No bold moves leaves the right ranting about minutia.

In 2007, Hillary Clinton gets asked if she’s “black enough” to be president.

Next time around, the candidates will be asked if they’re gay enough.

an alternative approach to the gay marriage issue would be to try the reverse – the legal standard for two people wishing to commit themselves to one another would be called civil unions, equally available to gay or straight couples. the term marriage would simply refer to a religious ceremony that could be performed, but that would remain optional for each couple to chose to do or not as they preferred, and would also be optional for each religion as they chose.

Grumpy, The Advocate already asked the question back in April.

Behind the gay-friendly faces

No, they’re not for same-sex marriage, but Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama—the 2008 Democratic presidential front-runners—are good for gays in general, right? Or are they? An insider’s view.

Re: just bill @ #4

Great idea. Especially since “marriage” hardly means shit anymore anyway. Call it what it is –an at-will civil union.

Ah, civil unions. I just love the idea of having two sets of identical laws governing one idea. Nothing says efficient government like unnecessary redundancy based on mythological fears. I’ll say it again. Unnecessary redundancy based on mythological fear and bigotry is the most efficient way a government can operate.

Government’s job with regard to the three major “vital events” (a Demography term) consists of issuing birth certificates, death certificates and marriage certificates.

Religion’s job with regard to those events consists of providing baptisms, funerals and marriages, according to the criteria and rituals of particular faith communities.

There was a time in the long and varied history of the Church when gay funerals were not permitted and, further back, when gay marriages were supported. Allowing governments to perform (straight) marriages is an anachronism which should be corrected. Government’s only role, ever since the separation of church from state, should be civil.

And yet another example of Kucinich emerging as the one making sense.

Even with that he is still treated as a joke.

At sometime the various media venues (mainstream or not) are going to have to give people like him their due.

It may not happen this cycle, but eventually enough people will rise up to create that critical mass where those who make sense, who may be out of the sphere of the elites, can no longer be ignored, patronized, or marginalized.

Kucinich has absolutely no chance to win the Democratic nomination, and if he were to win that nomination has no chance of beating any of the lame Republican candidates.

But, he could have a profound impact on the direction, emphasis, and quality of the discourse if the media paid attention to him with the same kind of respect and admiration that a growing number of the electorate does.

Michael W: “The Advocate already asked the question back in April.”

That’s the 2007 version of the question. By 2011-2012, we’ll be doubting the sincerity of candidates who don silk shirts and attend a drag show, photographers in tow, just like candidates make spectacles of hunting trips nowadays.

If the debates/campaign were carried out on radio and in the newspapers/magazines only there’s no doubt Kucinich would be among the front runners. He has the most interesting, progressive, comprehensive and consistent ideas of any of them, even my fave John Edwards.

TeeVee is the reason Kucinich, and those like him, with never be taken seriously. TeeVee is like student evaluation of faculty: surface image is all that matters, not the depth of background or long-term results. Anything deeper than makeup and clothing, or longer than a sound bite, cannot be explored on TeeVee. Even if that medium were free (which it will never be in corporate America), its fatal flaw is that it appeals only to our occipital lobes, the parts of our brains we share with virtually all other life forms, the only function of which is to reach a split-second decision to approach or avoid, then erase.

I have to play Devil’s advocate here and defend the Christian church, not on its bigotry and small-mindedness, but on its right to define itself in any way it and its followers choose. State-Church separation is bi-directional. The government should no more attempt to control the church, than the church should the government.

Moreover, why would anyone want to be a member of a club that doesn’t want them as a member? It is the rights and benefits afforded to the married that should be available to all. Hence, civil unions.

I’m for civil unions replacing marriage totally from a legal standpoint. Leave marriage to be defined by whomever with no legal binding.

I’ll probably catch heat for even asking, but what is the scientific status of the gay-is-biological premise. I know I’m convinced by anecdotal evidence that it is true, but is there real science on the issue, the way there is for Global Warming and Evolution? OTH I do believe that in some cases Freud was right and sexuality is sometimes moldable.

JTK, no one is proposing that any church be forced to perform religious marriage ceremonies. No one. The point at issue is whether the government should issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples.

Dale, the growing scientific consensus is that sexuality is biologically/genetically determined, though some environment factors could play a small role. I don’t have any links handy (I’m at work now), but there have been numerous scientific studies examining the prevalence of homosexuality among identical twins, within families (hubby is one of six kids, three of them are gay), chemical reactions (pheromones, for instance), physical characteristics, and so on ad infinitum. I can try and dig up some links later, or you can do some searches on http://www.advocate.com or http://www.365gay.com . Both have had many such articles over the years.

JTK, several religious denominations already sanction same-sex unions, and perform marriage ceremonies for them. Even though it has been widely hushed up, so did the catholic church until the eras of the Enlightenment and the Renaissance. (See John Boswell’s Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe for more info.)

Hubby and I are agnostic/athiest, and had a civil ceremony when we got married in Canada. No churches involved, thank you very much.

I wish I could believe this isn’t the equivalent of Bush assuring Das Base that he’ll pass the federal gay marriage ban.

Is that too cynical?

Oh well.

As for the “How can we do this?” questions, I encourage people to read about the Civil Rights Movement. If the people in that movement has accepted “Well, if you’ll just wait, we don’t want to upset anyone,” from the majority, we’d still have segregated toilets. Sometimes you have to kick people in the arse and let them get used to it.

The attempt to distinguish Marriage from Civil Union is to my mind either a stupid pointless bicker over terminology or an attempt to bring back the doctrine of Separate but Equal. We’ve already been through that crap once, let’s not start it again.

If Jack and Jane go through a two minute ceremony in a court house and come out with certain rights in regards to property, benefits, etc. and John and Jim come next and go through the same two minute ceremony. You either have to agree that John and Jim should have the exact same rights as Jack and Jane and are therefore married or you have to say John and Jim can’t have the same rights, in which case, why bother?

Debating sure doesn’t appear to be Bill Richardson’s strong point. At least he realized he made a mistake and recovered.

It comes down to Richardson being confused about the sceince, but still making the correct decisions (or at least as good as most of the other Democrats). That’s far better than the Republican approach of making the wrong decisions and basing them on pseudo-science.

Thanks Michael W. I wonder if the Gay community has an Al Gore who lays it all out.

What everyone, including the media, should be asking is:

If the Republicans are too afraid to face questions on YouTube, how can we expect them to face Osama bin Laden?

If the Republicans are too afraid to face questions from a gay audience, how can we expect them to face Osama bin Laden?

Brian

Cyan: JTK, no one is proposing that any church be forced to perform religious marriage ceremonies. No one. The point at issue is whether the government should issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples.

… or to put it another way, whether government should issue marriage certificates at all, or simply civil union certificates (assuming that the term “Marriage” implies a religious component).

(assuming that the term “Marriage” implies a religious component).

Since people who don’t have a religion can get married, I’d say it doesn’t.

In Maryland you can have the Pope officiate at your wedding ceremony but you still won’t be legally married unless he signs the license issued by the county. I’m guessing this is fairly standard, but I could be wrong.

I’m for civil unions for all, with those — and only those — having any legal standing. Then, once you’ve “contracted a union” (that’s what it used to be callled in Poland, though gays were barred from it, alas. Now, with the black regime having replaced the red regime, even more so) and you want a church blessing, by all means, go for it. But the church marriage would have no legal standing *without* a civil ceremony.

And TAiO, a civil ceremony doesn’t have to be a 2-minute issuance of the licence. I attended quite a few of those before I came to the States and they were quite impressive, with the magistrate in the full regalia, witnesses, guests dressed to the nines, promisses similiar to those said in church, etc. Warsaw was the first city to instal a “wedding palace” for civil ceremonies but other cities and towns followed and those places are *still* crammed every weekend, even though a church wedding has the same legal status now.

Comments are closed.