Decision 2008: Electing a Gay-Friendly Congress and President
By Rod McCullom
November 4, 2008 is a full 15 months from now but that event horizon should not lead you into a false sense of complacency. If the date already isn’t entered into your Outlook Calendar or Blackberry, take a moment and do so right now. The stakes of the 2008 presidential election are too important to the LGBT community—many of us should organize our priorities and mobilize our resources as if the election were 15 days from now as opposed to 15 months away.
This is the most important task facing our community: By electing a Democratic president of your choice—and there are no shortage of qualified candidates—we can ensure that LGBT persons in all the 50 states will have basic rights like protection from employment discrimination and are protected by hate crimes legislation. Those are two small steps on the long march to equality.
Gays and lesbians in sophisticated urban areas like New York City or Los Angeles take those simple protections for granted. Unfortunately, not everyone has that luxury: Thirty-three states lack employment protection for gay men and lesbians, 42 for gender identity. The Congress is willing is to pass such legislation, but the divisive, anti-gay Bush Administration has threatened to veto any new hate crimes or employment discrimination legislation coming from the Congress.
Several months ago, the editors of The Advocate asked me to write a story on the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s “comfort level” around gay issues. Who were their gay advisors? How extensive was their support in the community? Could they be moved on some issues? At the time, I wrote a fairly extensive profile—it actually morphed into a cover story because I thought LGBT issues would be that important in the 2008 election. At the time, a few people told me that my analysis was flawed; it certainly was a strong statement, lining up a Clinton and Obama cover next to the shirtless model-slash-actors on the other gay glossies.
Since then, the top three candidates have all modified their positions on the infamous Defense of Marriage Act. Also, thanks to Logo and the Human Rights Campaign, the majority of the Democratic candidates are reaching out to LGBT voters through a historic and unique television forum. Go figure.
Given the choices and the depth of the presidential candidate field—on the Democratic side, that is, none of the Republicans are reaching out to gay voters—it’s difficult not to have a candidate. Hillary Clinton has worked with gay men and lesbians since the early ’90s and could become the first woman president. John Edwards has a strong, progressive platform and has run an incredibly gay-friendly campaign. Barack Obama has been working and organizing with black gay men and lesbians on Chicago’s South Side for years and would be our nation’s first black president. Bill Richardson boasts a résumé that is second to none and his own state of New Mexico has become a mecca for gay men and lesbians. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are mounting long-shot campaigns, but their superb LGBT positions have forced the other candidates to move forward. There is someone for everyone.
If this concept of expanding employment discrimination or hate crimes to include gay men or lesbians seems to, well, pedestrian, here is a story that might put things into perspective. Several months ago, two young black gay men approached me at a Starbucks and recognized me from my picture from the blog or magazines. They introduced themselves and one said that he was from Virginia and came up to New York to live “because life was so hard for me after I came out.” He said that his family had rejected him, and, to make matters worse, had been fired from a minimum wage retail job. “The only thing I had to keep me in touch with the world, and knowing that there were other men who were black and gay and who could be a role model, was through your blog,” he told me.
It’s a bittersweet story but all-too-common story. Virginia may be for lovers, but it’s also perfectly legal in that state—and 32 others—to fire employees who love someone of the same sex. We can’t force a family to accept someone, but after the 2008 election, by uniting behind a candidate, we could put someone in the White House who could turn back the clock and offer some basic protections to those who need it the most. It’s a start.
Writer and television news producer Rod McCullom edits the popular Rod 2.0 blog which covers pop culture and politics.
Digg This
Glamour Photography and Modeling...
Raven Riley videos, Raven Riley movies, Raven Riley Nude...
I've read Rod McCullom on his blog and in magazines and newspapers, both gay media and mainstream media. I've also seen him on CNN and know his background is a networks news producer. He is very much "versed" in these issues.
Good luck.
The fact that someone has name recognition doesn't necessarily make them more versed on an issue. But you're welcome to your opinion.
And a further note to Greg: Federal law doesn't always trump state law. The power of the federal government is limited. Otherwise there would be no need for the 10th Amendment, which reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Marriage law is illustrative of this. The power to regulate marriage is not a power delegated to the federal government. Usurpations like DOMA aside, there will be quite a battle with states' rights advocates if the federal government ever tries to mandate to states the parameters of their individual marriage laws. You should take note that DOMA only controls what the federal government may recognize as a marriage; it cannot dictate to a state like Massachusetts what it will or won't recognize as a marriage at the state level. The same would be true if the federal government passed a law to recognize civil unions. The federal government cannot mandate to the states that they all must begin performing same-sex civil unions. It seems very unlikely that the federal government would suddenly give itself the power to perform civil unions, though I suppose not impossible; usurpation of power by the federal government is certainly nothing new.
Federal recognition of same-sex civil unions and same-sex marriage very much depends on two things:
1) Getting rid of the federal DOMA, which prohibits both (but only at the federal level)
2) States performing same-sex marriages or civil unions. Otherwise the federal government would have nothing to recognize in the first place.
So I stand by my earlier statement: Federal recognition of civil unions won't do squat for those of us in states that ban them. The federal government is in no position to rescind those bans, because it has no constitutional power to regulate marriage; with the exception of course of laws that enforce or stifle the effect of the full faith and credit clause, DOMA being an example of the latter.
Federal law does not always trump state law. It very much depends on where the jurisdiction over a matter lies constitutionally, and how much usurpation of states' power by the federal government we allow to take place through our indifference to the actions of congress, the courts, and the executive.
The office of president matters - but it's not the only one of importance.
Step replies: And how many of them support same-sex marriage? You’ll recall, I said I’m waiting for an electable candidate that FULLY supports us, not partially.
Greg says: “So no, it's not about changing the Senate. It's about changing the President.”
Step replies: Certainly, we do need a change of president. What you don’t seem to get is that changing presidents won’t be enough to get the job done. I am not optimistic about ENDA’s prospects in the Senate. Maybe they’ll surprise me, but as Greg points out – it won’t make any difference with a veto promised from Bush.
I’m also not talking about just one or two bills of concern to our community. The makeup of the Senate has the potential to impact a LOT of stuff. And in case you’ve forgotten, senators serve longer terms than the president does.
I’m not saying the presidential election is unimportant – far from it. I merely think there’s more to government and our responsibilities as voters than this one office. It’s unfortunate that so many people pin all of their hopes on the office of president and neglect their local elections – or worse, simply don’t vote at all.
Thank you Logo and HRC!!
Of course, the state and local governments are the first place to look for rights. BUT MOST STATES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS DO NOT PROTECT GAYS. That's why there has bene a huge push to enact ENDA and hate crimes.
I don't know who you are but I've been reading Rod at Rod 2.0, in The Advocate, in Out, and on CNN. I think he is much more versed on these issues.
As Rod said, ENDA hasn't passed because either the votes were no there or the Republican congressional leadership, which led Congress for 12 years, refused to bring it up.
Hate crimes passed the House and is coming up for a vote in the Senate. The Senate is also supposed to vote on ENDA. It seems like both have a good chance of passing the Senate, but Bush says he will veto both.
So no, it's not about changing the Senate. It's about changing the President. That's the only was we're going to get legislation to protect everyone in this country. Most gay men and lesbians are not protected. And federal law does supersede state or local law. ;)
Living as I do in Michigan - a state that does not offer any civil rights protection on the basis of orientation, has recently banned affirmative action, and in 2004 added an amendment to its constitution banning the recognition of any union other than one man/one woman for any purpose - it never ceases to amaze me who ill-informed our community is about our rights (or lack thereof).
People need to pay as much attention to their local and state elections as they do to the presidential election every four years. We're a lot more likely to make headway there than through the ponderous mechanisms of federal government. Too often I hear uttered the mistaken belief that "federal law trumps state law". It's not always the case - some matters are not delegated to the federal government and are under the jurisdiction of individual states; marriage laws and certain civil rights protections being an example. This should be obvious to people by now, given the current patchwork of marriage/civil union/domestic partnership laws at the state level. Rederal recognition for civil unions won't do anything for those of us who live in states that ban them. The passage of ENDA is long overdue, IMO - and I'm very glad the city where I live passed its own anti-discrimination ordinance years ago.
My point being - if you're waiting for the federal government to right the wrongs, you're going to have a much longer wait than if you get involved to make change happen locally.
As for the current slate of Democratic candidates, I can tell you as an Independent that I'm still waiting for the day when someone electable comes along who fully supports us. It's obvious to me that the 2008 election is poised to be a big miss for us. If the nomination goes to Hillary Clinton, you can kiss a lot of the swing voters - and the White House - goodbye. On the off chance that someone else captures the party's nomination, it will probably come down to how disgusted the public in general has become with GOP scandals and secrecy, versus how much they give in to their fears surrounding terrorism.
Even if we do somehow manage to elect a democrat for president, I wouldn't get your hopes up that they'll accomplish much with the senate so evenly divided between the two parties. If you want a change of direction in this country, you'll have to start with a major change in the makeup of the Senate.
A candidate's stand on LGBT issues isn't what will get them elected. But unforunately, it could still be a factor that pursuades anti-gay and gay-indifferent swing voters tired of hearing us complain to look somewhere other than the Democratic party.
I'm convinced that Americans really don't believe in fairness and equality for all. They never really have, and with a younger generation rising that holds strong libertarian leanings of an incredibly selfish nature, I think people need a dose of reality when it comes to the future of anti-discrimination laws in general. Go ahead and pass ENDA now; in 20-30 years, possibly sooner, it will become the next big fight as a movement rises calling for it's elimination.
You see, passing laws isn't enough; they won't stand the test of time if there isn't education to engender their long-term support. We're no longer teaching our children the value of cooperation. Instead the message is "get yours while you can, and grind into the ground anyone who stands in your way" - anything less has been labeled "socialism" and is viewed as the enemy.